UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Parliament

  • Austen Chamberlain – 1922 Speech on the Coalition Government

    Austen Chamberlain – 1922 Speech on the Coalition Government

    The speech made by Austen Chamberlain, the then MP for Birmingham West, in the House of Commons on 5 April 1922.

    If I rise thus early in the Debate, it is because I am anxious that this Resolution having been moved, there should not be given by myself or by any friend or supporter of this Government any occasion for anyone to believe that there was not time for the House to give a decision upon it. Whether the House is being occupied as usefully as it might be, whether the discussion is as edifying as it should be, these may be matters upon which opinion may be divided, but since my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks) has moved this Motion, by all means let the House divide. A fortnight ago my hon. Friend was the envied of all observers. He had achieved the ambition of the private Member. He had drawn the “gros lot” in the Parliamentary lottery. He had secured first place for a Motion.

    Mr. J. JONES

    Now he is an also-ran.

    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

    There was a moment of hesitation in his manner. You, Mr. Speaker, called upon him to name the subject which he wished to bring before the House. Any careful observer, as I am of my hon. Friend’s Parliamentary proceedings, could see that he had been taken by surprise. My hon. Friend is not one of those earnest seekers after reform who bring down to the House every day an attaché case full of recipes for a new and better world, nor had he taken the precaution, which I believe is sometimes taken by Members, of procuring from the Whips one of those anodyne Resolutions which soothe the House, even to the point of a count, and give wearied legislators an occasional rest from their labours. No, Sir, you named the hon. Member, and for a moment he stood in hesitation. Then he had a happy thought—to call attention to the position of the Government, and to move a Resolution. My hon. Friend, remembering he was a leader of a party in this House—

    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

    No, no!

    HON. MEMBERS

    Prospective!

    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

    More than that, actual. He remembered he was the leader—

    Mr. J. JONES

    And the party.

    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

    and the only leader of our party in the House, since the whole of my 10 colleagues, myself included, have departed from the true faith, and are no longer worthy of support. Accordingly, he gave notice that he would call attention to the position of the Government, and that he would move a Resolution.

    Mr. J. JONES

    He would move anything.

    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

    Who could say what might and what might not happen from this great determination. The Government might be shaken to its foundations, it might be overthrown, and a new Government might be needed—and a new Prime Minister too! He hoped that one of the small pebbles he had picked up from the brook would slay Goliath, hence forth the path would be clear—

    Mr. J. JONES

    For the London General Omnibus Company. [HON. MEMBERS: “Order!”]

    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

    —and the highest authority in the land would have no difficulty in determining to what quarter to entrust the formation of a really great and principled Ministry. My hon. Friend must, indeed, have been happy, and none of his old comrades in this House will grudge him the enjoyment of those sweet hours. Then a new dilemma arose. He had not merely to call attention to the position of the Government, but he had undertaken to move a Resolution. What was the Resolution to be? He had not thought about it. He did not know, and 11 days passed before the Resolution could be framed. But I do not doubt that the new Cabinet was in constant and daily session. For 10 or 11 days it was framing—

    Mr. GWYNNE

    How many days did you take to frame the Genoa Resolution? [HON. MEMBERS: “Order, order!”]

    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

    —was framing the Resolution which was to be the foundation of honest government.

    Mr. DEVLIN

    Say something about this leader, the hon. Member for Alder-shot (Viscount Wolmer).

    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

    There must be a leader, primus inter pares, if no more, and if I diverged and examined the difference between all the prospective leaders, well, I should prevent that Division which I am anxious to secure. I am a little surprised that it took so long for this new Cabinet to frame their Resolution, for, after all, their task was a simple one. They were not cunning politicians, crafty tacticians, seeking a platform on which they could gain votes. They were not old Parliamentary hands trying to devise a Resolution which would secure support from discordant elements within this House. No, Sir. They were honest, simple citizens—

    Mr. J. JONES

    More simple than honest.

    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

    —acting under a profound sense of responsibility, an impelling consideration to duty, determined to put before this House and the country a clear, specific definition of principles, which challenged everyone who did not agree with them, in what ever quarter of the House he might sit, on which, if their Motion succeeded, they would form their Government and conduct the business of the country. What was required was not confused criticism of other people’s acts, which is so easy, so simple—we all give any amount of it; what was wanted was a clear statement of their own views, showing exactly where they differed from the present Government, wherein their present leaders had failed, and differentiating sharply between them and those sections of the House from which, I suppose, they are still even further divided, than from those whom they took to be their leaders. What was wanted was a new Athanasian Creed, outside of which there was no political salvation. Their course was perfectly clear. They stood for perfect unity of thought in the councils of the nation, for purity of principle, in which we have been sadly and deplorably deficient—

    Mr. GIDEON MURRAY

    Hear hear!

    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

    I cannot say how I rejoice when I find that I correctly interpret the opinions and arguments of my critics. I think that particular critic has had a note of warning from the Unionist Association in his own constituency, but my hon. Friend need not think that I attach the less importance to his opinions on that account; I only remark that they have a less representative character. These Gentlemen, a little restive even under my anticipatory criticism, were above all to avoid all entangling alliances, such as I have unfortunately fallen into with the Prime Minister. They were to have a splendid isolation indeed. We could all draw that Resolution. With a little thought, say an hour’s reflection, we could have found a Resolution for them that would have challenged everybody who did not agree with them. The only trouble is that they would not have agreed about it themselves. But, alas! a serpent crept into their paradise.

    Mr. THOMAS

    Who was it?

    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

    Ah! That I do not know, but look at their Resolution. They stand for purity of political faith. There is to be no alloy. There is to be no corrupt co-operation—not even a chance meeting in the Division Lobby, unless underlain by a real unity of conviction. But what is the Resolution they have drawn? Is there a single principle in it? Is there any definition of their faith? No, Sir. This new Cabinet, after sitting for ten days in constant and anxious consideration, produces a Resolution for which every critic of the Government can vote because it condemns the Government for which every supporter of every alternative Government can vote, because all that it demands is an alternative Government. Was there ever a greater sham? My hon. Friend who moved the Resolution and who thinks my course devious, my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. R. McNeill), who thinks I have no regard for principle—what are they doing? Asserting their own principles? Not a bit. Currying the favour, seeking the support, bidding for the vote—

    Mr. GWYNNE

    Not of murderers!

    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

    Of anyone whom they can get.

    Mr. J. JONES

    Give them socks!

    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

    These critics of the Coalition that exists make their first step in condemnation of the Coalition by a Motion deliberately drawn to get into their Lobby the maximum of support from those with whom they have not one thing in common, except dislike of the Prime Minister and contempt for myself. I congratulate them on their first effort to break our party and to establish a new Coalition.

    Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE

    The Labour party often vote for you.

    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

    The Resolution does not help me to an understanding of their principles. No mention is made of their principles, lest principle should interfere with practice. I turn, therefore, to their speeches. I thought I had got a little light—it was not very much—from the speech which I see my hon. Friend addressed to his constituents in Twickenham last night. I read it in the “Morning Post.” It is remarkable, incidentally, that the first observation which the “Morning Post” thought it well to report was that someone in a high position should go to the great manufacturing centres, and tell the workmen that they would have to work harder, and produce more goods.

    “Someone in a high position.”

    To whom did my hon. Friend look for counsel that would really be listened to?

    “Someone in a high position like the Prime Minister.”

    He could not keep the Prime Minister out the moment he wanted to do business. When my hon. Friend forms his Government, I shall be on that bench, but I can clearly see that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be holding some high office and employed in all the most difficult and the most thankless jobs. But really that was not what interested me most, because I was in search of principles. Here is my hon. Friend’s declaration:

    “Though the Die-hards might have their political future at stake, though they might die politically, yet the principles for which 1hey stood would never perish. They were built on a belief in God, King and Empire. Such principles could never die.”

    That was good enough for Twickenham. He did not repeat it in this House to-night, and he did not for obvious reasons. How is he going to define it? How is he going to indicate it to the Whips? Is he going to say to the Whips—I believe there are Whips in that party—”Go down there below the Bar and say, ‘In this Lobby for God, King and Empire,’ and in that Lobby for” What? Oh, what a difference there is between a peroration at Twickenham and the Floor of the House of Commons! No, Sir, he did not repeat that. I have sought to divine what was the crucial issue on which the Government had gone wrong, and, above all, the crucial issue which made my hon. Friend resolve to challenge on the Floor of this House, in the presence of opponents, for whom he has provided a merry holiday—

    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

    You have helped towards it.

    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

    but the action of every one of the Unionist Members of the Cabinet, from my right hon. Friend the veteran leader of our party, the Lord President, downwards. I am not sure that I have got it right, but I gather that Canadian store cattle have something to do with it. “God, King, and Empire” have disappeared, and Canadian store cattle have taken their place.

    My hon. Friend, I think, committed himself in a moment of surprise, when he was overwhelmed by his unexpected success in the Ballot, into raising a subject and moving a Motion which, in calmer moments, he would have reserved for discussion elsewhere. My hon. Friend has differed from the great bulk of his party before. He has challenged Divisions in this House, or he and his friends have. No hard words have been said; no irrevocable division has been made, and we have looked forward to re-uniting, as has often happened before, the moment a particular subject of difference has disappeared. He has now chosen to make the present difference of opinion between a small fraction of the Unionist party in this House and the great bulk of the Unionist party in this House a subject for public and formal discussion in the presence of those who, whatever be the differences between my hon. Friends and me, are the opponents of us both. He seeks to magnify those differences, while I seek to minimise them.

    Lord HUGH CECIL

    Hear, hear!

    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

    I knew that would appeal to my Noble Friend, who calls himself a Conservative, but who is anarchistic if he is anything. When my Noble Friend goes into the Lobby with his avowed political opponents he is happy, because he knows that nobody agrees with him. He votes with his political opponents for reasons which are alien to them. He separates from his political friends for reasons which only he himself can understand. The only thing which could distress my Noble Friend is that he should find himself in agreement with anyone, above all with members of the party to which he professes to belong. He is constantly astonishing and surprising us. He always delights us, but he never influences us. But the ironical cheer of the Noble Lord for the moment turned me from my argument. My observation was this; as the man selected by all the members of the party to be their Leader in this House, I have done my best to minimise the differences, and to promote union. I wonder if my hon. Friend really is sensible of what he is doing, and whether he considers he is serving the party to which we belong, and the causes which that party is bound to serve, by such action as he has taken to-night in this Motion.

    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

    Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me for a moment. I think he is a little unfair. I do not like to mention private conferences, but my right hon. Friend will allow me to say, I am sure, to tell the House that my friends who have been supporting and working with me in this matter had a private conference with the leaders of the party some few weeks ago—with my right hon. Friend himself—and they allowed us to put our case before them, I hope with fairness and courtesy to them. They received us. What happened it is not for me to say; but it is a little unfair to us to say that we have not taken any other course than that of coming before the House.

    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

    I have not suggested that my hon. Friend did not take any other course. The meeting, it was agreed, should be private, and it became public by an indiscretion which was regretted by those who met us, and by myself. I am not going to refer to what took place. What I was saying was that. I wondered whether he really considered what would be the effect upon the party to which he belonged, and upon the cause which that party is bound to serve, by the action which he has taken and the Motion he has laid before us. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. E. McNeill) seconded. He and the mover sit in what, I suppose, are under any circumstances safe Conservative seats—at any rate, they were, and I hope they are still. Have they given a thought to the position of their colleagues elsewhere?

    Mr. N. MACLEAN

    Vote catching—selfish!

    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

    Have they given the slightest thought to opinion elsewhere within our own party? Have they considered what is the opinion of Unionists in St. Rollox, Glasgow? Have they considered the effect on Conservative opinion in Liverpool, or Manchester, or Bristol, or in any of the great industrial centres? My hon. Friends who moved and seconded this Resolution are going counter to the great mass of opinion in the Unionist party throughout the country. They are living in little coteries in their own constituencies and in their own circles in London and they do not realise what is the movement of the world. For the sake of narrow party spirit and old party jealously, they are wrecking the great causes for which we are working. They have been unable either in the country or on the Floor of this House to-night to state the principles of our party to which we have been unfaithful. They have deliberately refrained from putting forward such principles in the Motion as a challenge to the House. What did my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury say I He talked about how in the old days—I do not quite understand what happened—but he said a Minister resigned because he did something—I am not sure what. In those days what did a Minister do? He would come out if he resigned. A very remarkable observation! I am bound to say it is all the more remarkable because of the kind of speech that resigning Ministers have lately shown us. What are these luckless ex-Ministers to do? They have no alternative principles. What does that mean?

    Mr. R. McNEILL

    I did not say anything of the sort.

    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

    I beg your pardon, I took it down. “They had no alternative set of principles.” What does that mean? That resignations from the Government have not been on the question of principle—that there is no division on the question of principle. My hon. Friends who were responsible for this Motion have either been unable, or what is worse, they have deliberately refrained from stating, either in speech or Resolution, the principles of Unionist policy to which they allege that I and all my Unionist colleagues have been untrue. There are only two explanations. Either they are unable to find such principles, and we stand justified, or they have deliberately refrained from doing so in order to get a bigger vote in the Lobby, in order to swell the small section of our own party which has split away from us, by a large section of men with whom they have nothing in common. In either case, I say, they stand condemned.

  • Jacob Rees-Mogg – 2022 Comments on Boris Johnson Being Given Incorrect Information on Illegal Gatherings

    Jacob Rees-Mogg – 2022 Comments on Boris Johnson Being Given Incorrect Information on Illegal Gatherings

    The comments made by Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Leader of the House of Commons, being interviewed by Nick Ferrari on LBC Radio on 4 April 2022.

    JACOB REES-MOGG

    The Prime Minister said that he was told that the rules were followed, but that turns out not to be correct as we know that fines have now been issued. But the Prime Minister can only work on the information he is given.

    NICK FERRARI

    So it was the information that was incorrect and not the Prime Minister?

    JACOB REES-MOGG

    If the Prime Minister is told information that is incorrect and passes that information on, then he has made no deliberate effort to mislead anybody.

    JACOB REES-MOGG

    You don’t for one second countenance the idea that he has attempted to mislead Parliament Mr Rees-Mogg?

    NICK FERRARI

    No I don’t.

  • Brendan O’Hara – 2022 Speech on Lord Lebedev Joining the House of Lords

    Brendan O’Hara – 2022 Speech on Lord Lebedev Joining the House of Lords

    The speech made by Brendan O’Hara, the SNP MP for Argyll and Bute, in the House of Commons on 29 March 2022.

    I shall heed the warning about moderation and good temper, which I am sure my SNP colleagues would say is in my DNA and runs through me like the writing in a stock of rock. Should I stray, I am sure that you would bring me back into line, Madam Deputy Speaker.

    I was fascinated by the start of the Minister’s speech and I tried to intervene, but he would not take my multiple attempts to do so. When he got to his feet, he began by questioning the appropriateness of the Opposition holding such a debate on this topic. Literally minutes before he questioned how appropriate it was, Lord Lebedev said:

    “There’s a war in Europe”—

    hon. Members will recognise the phrase—

    “Britain is facing the highest cost of living since the 1950s. And you choose to debate me based on no facts and pure innuendo.”

    That was precisely the Minister’s opening gambit, which prompts the question: did he write the Minister’s speech or did the Minister write his tweet?

    That assertion was absurd, because we have come to learn, often through painful experience in this place, that when this Government and this Prime Minister assure us that there is nothing to see, it is wise to keep looking. That is why we fully support the motion and why, when the House divides, we will vote for the Government to hand over all documents, all minutes of meetings and all electronic communications containing or relating to the advice that they received about the appointment of Evgeny Lebedev to the House of Lords.

    I reiterate in the strongest possible terms that today’s debate is absolutely not about being Russophobic, as the Minister would shamefully have us believe. He said that to try to throw up a smokescreen cover for his beleaguered Prime Minister, and it does the Prime Minister and this House no service whatever to try to suggest otherwise. As has been said many, many times in this Chamber, our fight is not with the ordinary Russian citizen, but with Putin, his political leadership in the Kremlin and his friends, including the oligarch billionaires who have plundered Russia’s wealth and resources and shipped them overseas, all too often to the UK and the City of London. Once they were in the UK, those billionaire oligarchs found many people in business and politics who, in return for their slice of the cake, were only too willing to facilitate the kleptocracy by hiding the oligarchs’ plunder for them while providing them with what they desired most: a cloak of respectability.

    The UK’s willingness to welcome vast amounts of Russian money with very few questions asked about the source of that wealth means that there are now many Russians with close links to Putin who are very well integrated into the UK and who simply, because of that enormous wealth, have attained significant influence among the UK’s business, social and political elites.

    Since this Prime Minister came into office in 2019, £2.3 million of Russian-linked cash has been funnelled directly into the Conservative party. That has happened to such an extent that even the Intelligence and Security Committee raised serious concerns about undue influence being sought and, indeed, gained by friends of President Putin with the UK governing party.

    That influence of dirty Russian money has not gone unnoticed abroad. Professor Sadiq Isah Radda, the most senior adviser to Nigeria’s President on all matters of anti-corruption, described London as

    “the most notorious safe haven for looted funds in the world today”.

    That is where we currently are in the world standings.

    In January this year, as Putin prepared to invade Ukraine, the Centre for American Progress warned the City of London that

    “uprooting Kremlin-linked oligarchs will be a challenge given the close ties between Russian money and the United Kingdom’s ruling Conservative party, the press, and its real estate and financial industry”.

    It was always going to be the case that when Putin finally did unleash his illegal war in Ukraine, the UK would be forced to look at our role and how we have facilitated his gangster regime.

    Stewart Hosie

    My hon. Friend will have noticed that the Minister described the motion as a misuse of powers, implied that it would impede the Prime Minister in his constitutional role and argued that it is about a witch hunt against a single person. Is the truth not that the motion is about allowing us to understand whether or not the process of appointment has been corrupted? As my hon. Friend has mentioned Russian money, can he throw some light on why the Minister has doubled down on those ridiculous arguments?

    Brendan O’Hara

    Perhaps the Minister could reply for himself. I have no idea why he would double down on those ridiculous arguments.

    My right hon. Friend is right that this is not about an individual. It is about a corruption of process, and that was always going to lead us to a re-examination of the Prime Minister’s decision to send Evgeny Lebedev to the House of Lords for philanthropy and services to the media, as he put it. As we have heard, Mr Lebedev is a Russian businessman who derives his enormous wealth from his father, Alexander Lebedev, a former London-based KGB spy turned oligarch who still has investments in illegally occupied Crimea. At the start of this month, The New York Times said of Evgeny:

    “Nobody is a better example of the cozy ties between Russians and the establishment than Mr. Lebedev.”

    Just how cosy that relationship is can be seen from the fact that the British Prime Minister personally campaigned for a peerage to turn plain old Evgeny into Baron Lebedev, of Hampton in the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames and of Siberia in the Russian Federation, for the rest of his life.

    I could go on about the absurdity of the House of Lords—the absurdity of a so-called democratic Parliament having an unelected upper Chamber into which family chieftains, high-ranking clerics of one denomination, failed and retired politicians and those with deep pockets who are prepared to bankroll a political party are thrust—but I will resist.

    Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)

    I make it clear that I have never met Lord Lebedev; I do not think I have ever been in the same room as him—but Dmitry Muratov has. He is editor-in-chief of Novaya Gazeta, an independent newspaper in Russia. The House will remember that he is also a Nobel peace laureate. He has said:

    “The narrative being peddled in parts of the British media about him and his family is not only misjudged but actively dangerous. I urge you to consider who benefits from such untruths being told about a family that is known to be vocally critical of the Kremlin.”

    Is the Scottish National party doing the same thing?

    Brendan O’Hara

    With the greatest respect, we most certainly are not. If this Government are so scared of shining a light that has to be shone, at this of all times, there will be accusations of a cover-up and a belief that there is something to be hidden—something that this Government do not want seen. The debate today is all about allowing transparency. That is what this House should be all about, but unfortunately the Government and Conservative Members seem to be terrified of it.

    Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)

    The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. Is not the real concern that the Prime Minister seemingly ignored Security Service advice? That is the issue. We do not make criticism of appointing the person as a peer; the concern is that the Prime Minister ignored security advice and appointed him despite that advice.

    Brendan O’Hara

    The hon. Member is absolutely right. This is about why the Prime Minister chose to ignore the advice of the security services, but there is also a hugely important back story about what got us into the position where he did so, and the implications of that.

    Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)

    My point is a rather similar one: if there was no problem with Lebedev being appointed as a peer and if the guidance from the security services was benign, what is the problem with scrutiny of that advice, which would put to rest all the concerns that people have?

    Brendan O’Hara

    That is right. A theme appears to be emerging on this side of the House. All we want to do is see what was there. All we want is to be reassured that the advice of the security services was not ignored, and that the appointment of Lord Lebedev was above board and beyond reproach. I do not think that, in a democratic system, that is too much for the House to ask.

    As Putin’s army continues to commit its war crimes in Ukraine, we have to get to the bottom of how a man with such close connections to the Kremlin was parachuted into this Parliament. We have to establish exactly what advice was given to the Prime Minister by the security and intelligence services in the summer of 2020, and whether or not he chose to overrule that advice, or sought to alter it in any way, in order to get the outcome that he required.

    We know that this was not a straightforward appointment. It could not possibly have been, particularly since, almost a decade ago, the head of MI6, Sir John Sawers, made it clear that he did not consider it at all appropriate for Mr Lebedev, then the owner of the Evening Standard and The Independent, to join him at MI6 headquarters for lunch. Advisers to the Prime Minister would have known for years of those security service concerns, and one would have hoped that an aspiring politician—or an aspiring Prime Minister—might be wary of becoming too close to Mr Lebedev, but that was not the case. It would appear that in return for favourable headlines in the Evening Standard, Mr Lebedev gained access to the centre of power in the Conservative party, and, particularly after 2019, the centre of the UK Government itself.

    Surely Mr Lebedev’s very public utterings about the illegal annexation of Crimea should have set alarm bells ringing in the Conservative party. Did no one in the Conservative party hear or take notice of him calling on western Governments to “stop cold war rhetoric” when they condemned Russia for its aggression in Crimea? Did no one notice his justification that because Crimea had been Russian “for many years”, this was not something to get overly upset about? Did his claim in 2014 that Russia would not be making

    “any further incursions into any land”

    fall on deaf ears?

    The clues were all there, if people chose to look for them. On Syria, Mr Lebedev said that Putin had “shown leadership” in the conflict, and urged the west to accept his offer of a coalition. He followed that up by saying, “Let us keep Assad in power”, because it would be the least worst option, and he doubled down on that by saying:

    “On this point I am emphatically with Putin.”

    The list is endless. Where was the condemnation of the events surrounding the poisoning of Sergei Skripal, and how in the name of the wee man did our Prime Minister end up having an off-the-record talk with Lord Lebedev—or Evgeny Lebedev, as he was then—48 hours after the Skripal poisonings?

    Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)

    Will the hon. Gentleman at least concede that it was the Conservative Government who led a very robust international effort to respond to the Skripal poisonings, and that the Labour party was, at that time, led by someone who refused to condemn them?

    Brendan O’Hara

    The Skripal poisonings fit into this debate beautifully, because the fact is that an off-the-record meeting was held between the Prime Minister and Mr Lebedev within 48 hours, at the time of an international crisis, and we do not know why. [Interruption.] I am sorry; I thought that Members wished to intervene, but they are just chuntering.

    Mr Lebedev and the Prime Minister socialised. They are widely known to have socialised in Mr Lebedev’s castles in Italy and elsewhere, and in London regularly. Mr Lebedev was present in 2016 at the private dinner when the now Prime Minister decided he was going to back the Brexit campaign. I have no idea what Mr Lebedev’s view on Brexit is, but I do know that, in the year before, he wrote this in his newspaper:

    “I have no doubt, based on conversations with senior figures in Moscow, that the Kremlin wants to make an ally rather than an enemy of Britain. And I also believe that it is in Britain’s best interest not only to work constructively with Moscow, but to be an active, engaged player on the world stage.”

    I opened this speech by saying that when the Government tell us there is “nothing to see here”, we should keep looking. The danger here, however, is that there is almost too much to see to make sense of. We know that the Prime Minister has been absolutely compromised by his relationship with Lord Lebedev. The public have a right to know if the Prime Minister gave an individual a seat for life in this Parliament against the advice of the security services. Desperately not wanting that to be the case is no reason for Conservative Members to block the release of this material. If there is nothing untoward, the Government should publish the material and put the matter to bed for once and for all. Then we could let Baron Lebedev return to doing hee-haw in the other place, as he has done with aplomb since he arrived there 18 months ago.

  • Michael Ellis – 2022 Speech on Lord Lebedev Joining the House of Lords

    Michael Ellis – 2022 Speech on Lord Lebedev Joining the House of Lords

    The speech made by Michael Ellis, the Paymaster General, in the House of Commons on 29 March 2022.

    Let me first address the situation in Ukraine. President Volodymyr Zelensky has spoken of the Prime Minister and people of the United Kingdom as being among his greatest allies, and the Kremlin has spoken of the United Kingdom as a leading opponent. I am proud of that position, and we will continue to support Ukraine—as I know will the whole House—and the courageous people of that sovereign and independent country.

    The motion before the House calls on the Government to release advice provided by or to the House of Lords Appointments Commission, and relevant communications thereto. The Government regret today’s motion for any number of reasons—I will come on to those—but particularly because, for the first time in many decades there is a war in Europe, and there are many pressing domestic concerns and issues. It is somewhat surprising that the Opposition have brought forward for discussion this afternoon an ad hominem attack on a single individual.

    Although Parliament has unlimited power to call for papers, persons and records, historically the House has exercised restraint in the use of that power, and for good reason. That the motion seeks not to show restraint is, in my submission, unfortunate. I accept that Parliament has a vital scrutiny role and should use its power to facilitate it, but that does not extend to making use of the procedures of this place to single out an individual by making unsavoury and ad hominem attacks of the kind we have heard and will be hearing this afternoon.

    Several hon. Members rose—

    Michael Ellis

    Before I give way, which I will be happy to do, may I gently point out to the Opposition that—and I say this in all candour—they ought to be careful of intolerant messaging? Not all Russians are our enemy. Many British citizens of Russian extraction came to this country with a view to an opposition to President Putin. People cancelling Tchaikovsky concerts is not appropriate, and Labour seeking to whip up anti-Russian feeling or casting all persons of Russian extraction in a negative light is wrong.

    Furthermore, the disclosure of the information sought here today would undermine the very role of the House of Lords Appointments Commission. Labour is asking for something that would break the appointments process in the House of Lords. It would chip away at the careful vetting procedures and the exchange of information that necessarily has to be discreet.

    Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)

    Will the Minister give way?

    Michael Ellis

    If I may, I will just finish this thought.

    Let us not forget that the commission of which we are speaking is independent, expert, advisory, and cross-party, with Labour, Liberal and Conservative members, and it was set up by Tony Blair and the Labour party in the year 2000—more than 20 years ago.

    Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)

    On the Minister’s point about Labour being Russophobic, I lived and worked in Russia for three years as director of the British Council in St Petersburg, and we worked every day with ordinary Russians—good people—who want that country to be a normal country connected to the rest of the world. The people we are talking about today are not ordinary Russians. We are talking about a former KGB spy and the woman who was married to a former deputy Finance Minister who has given millions of pounds to the Conservative party. I humbly ask the Minister to withdraw the comment about Russophobia. We have no problem with the Russian people; we have a big problem with what he is talking about today.

    Michael Ellis

    No, I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. In fact, the noble Lord who is the subject of this debate is not a Conservative party donor and never has been, so the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong on all those fronts. The motion before the House today is what I have said it is.

    Shaun Bailey

    Further to the point of the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), I wonder whether my right hon. Friend and learned Friend could give me his thoughts on this tweet that has just come through, which contains this from the Leader of the Opposition:

    “Congratulations on your elevation to the House of Lords. All best wishes, Keir”?

    Is what is good for the goose good for the gander? What does the Minister think about that?

    Michael Ellis

    It has been mentioned that Lord Lebedev has been tweeting this afternoon, and I understand that he has tweeted in the past few minutes that the Leader of the Opposition congratulated him on his appointment as a peer. That must be rather embarrassing for the Labour party.

    Matt Western

    I sometimes think that the Minister must be the Derek Underwood of the Front Bench in that he is the nightwatchman defending the indefensible.

    As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) just said, we are clearly talking about someone with huge influence who has worked closely with the Prime Minister and collaborated in delivering certain election victories for him as the Mayor of London.

    Michael Ellis

    Lord Lebedev is a British citizen of Russian extraction who, I understand, had his primary and secondary education in this country. I see no logic in the Labour party’s assessment.

    In order to put this issue in its true context, it is necessary to remind hon. Members of the process for nominations for peerages. The power to confer a peerage, with the entitlement to sit in the House of Lords, is vested in Her Majesty the Queen and is exercised on the advice of the Prime Minister. It is a long-established feature of our constitutional arrangements. The Prime Minister is ultimately responsible to Parliament, as he is in all matters, and to the people of the country for any nominations he makes.

    Two events have served to shape that process. First, the House of Lords Act 1999 ended the right of hereditary peers to pass membership of the other place down through their families. Secondly, the House of Lords Appointments Commission was created in May 2000—under Labour, which now wishes to break it—and it recommends individuals for appointment as non-party political life peers, such as those on the Cross Benches, and has political representation from the three parties within its members. The vetting process is at the heart of its work. The commission seeks to ensure the highest standards of propriety, and I include party political nominees within that.

    It does not apply in the instant case, but it should not be a matter of opprobrium that somebody be a party political supporter. Labour has hundreds of peers in the House of Lords. The Liberal Democrats have some 83 peers despite them having barely enough Members of Parliament to fill a minicab. There is nothing wrong with having a political affiliation.

    The House of Lords Appointments Commission seeks advice from a number of sources during its deliberations. Any time we ask any independent advisory body to obtain advice, and it does so discreetly and in confidence, if we seek to break that process, said body will not be able to function. Once all the evidence has been considered, the commission will either advise the Prime Minister that it has no concerns about an appointment or will draw its concerns to the Prime Minister’s attention. It is a long-standing position that it is for the Prime Minister of the day to recommend appointments to the House of Lords. For that reason, the Prime Minister continues to place great weight on the commission’s careful and considered advice before making any recommendations. That arrangement has served successive Prime Ministers of both parties but, as in other areas, they must carefully balance a range of evidence.

    Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)

    I am grateful to the Minister for giving way to a Liberal Democrat, few as we are. Nevertheless, I draw his attention to another tweet from Lord Lebedev:

    “Openness and transparency are pillars of our democratic system, so I welcome the call for security advice about me…to be released. I have nothing to hide.”

    The Minister is highlighting the fact that the appointment was questioned by that commission, so I do not see his argument, because it sounds like there were concerns. If Lord Lebedev has nothing to hide and the commission made its recommendation, that prompts the question: what do the Government have to hide?

    Michael Ellis

    I thank the hon. Lady for asking that question. This is not about any one individual. The Opposition are seeking it to be about one individual who cannot answer for himself in this House, which is wrong. The Government are seeking to protect the system, so even if Lord Lebedev has said that he does not mind, it is not, with the greatest respect, only about him; this is about protecting the system, because the House of Lords Appointments Commission would not be able to function.

    The Leader of the Opposition wrote to the commission earlier this month and received a reply a week or two ago, which I believe is in the public domain, in which it outlined the process and did not highlight any problems. The reality is that the Government are seeking to protect a system that has worked well for 22 years, so I ask the House to bear that in mind.

    Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)

    The Minister has said that the House of Lords Appointments Commission takes a variety of information from a variety of sources and organisations. That is perfectly reasonable. Is he suggesting, however, that the opinions or information of the intelligence services should somehow be of less importance than information from another body?

    Michael Ellis

    No, I am not suggesting anything of the sort. In fact, I have no personal knowledge of those from whom the commission obtains its information. It is for the commission, which has Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat and independent members, to make its own judgments, and we heard from the commission in the letter I mentioned, which I think was from Lord Bew.

    Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)

    Quite rightly, we should be concerned about Russian money coming into our political system, but my right hon. and learned Friend at the Dispatch Box is right in what he says. We really should point out who the Prime Minister was who let the fox into the chicken coup. Who was it, for instance, in 2003 when Roman Abramovich bought Chelsea football club? It was none other than the new Labour Prime Minister, Tony Blair.

    Michael Ellis

    Yes, well, I will leave the House to draw its own conclusions about that.

    I have to say that the individual who is the subject of this debate is a British citizen. He happens to be of Russian extraction. I understand that he has been in this country since primary school age. It is important to emphasise that this is about British people whose ancestry and heritage should not be relevant. As the owner of a regional newspaper, I understand that the London Evening Standard has raised £300,000 for its Ukraine appeal, £3 million for its AIDSfree campaign, and £13 million for its Dispossessed fund for persons in poverty in London and the Grenfell tragedy. I think that is something to be applauded.

    Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)

    Let us just get this right: this Lord Lebedev is educated here at primary school and senior school, he does not donate to political parties, he donates to charities and he is a good citizen. That lot over there on the Opposition Benches do not want to be involved in democracy. Is it the case that they just do not like foreign names? [Interruption.]

    Michael Ellis

    Well, I will invite the House to draw its own conclusion. [Interruption.]

    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)

    Order. I did say at the beginning that we must have good temper in this debate. Shouting at the Minister or anyone else does not help.

    Shaun Bailey

    On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In a bit of chuntering from the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), she referred to this as the most xenophobic Conservative party. Can I just say to the hon. Lady that I am certainly not a xenophobe and I take real exception to that? I invite her to withdraw those comments. [Interruption.]

    Madam Deputy Speaker

    Let me make this absolutely clear: nobody in this Chamber is calling anybody xenophobic. If anybody has used phrases like that, stop it now. I am not having it repeated. I am taking it that these things have not been said, because it would be better if they have not. Now, let us keep this at the right level. There is no need for superlative insults to go from one side to the other.

    Michael Ellis

    To return to where I started, there are so many issues that affect people’s lives that we could be debating today, for example: my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s income tax cuts, the first in 16 years; the 5p cut in fuel duty; or my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary’s plans to make sure that any child who falls behind in English or maths gets the support they need to get back on track. I find it surprising, at the very least, that the Opposition have chosen this particular motion, one that, at best, would compromise the ability of an independent body, which is respected for its independence, to fulfil its mandate simply to make a short-term political point. At worst, it would be negligent of the long-term consequences to the key role of the House of Lords in scrutinising the Executive and being a revising Chamber, and the valued expertise and specialist knowledge and experience of its Members.

    Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)

    I think lots of my colleagues would say that we have tabled the motion because it gets to the heart of who we are as a country and a democracy. Given the Prime Minister’s long-term relationship with the Lebedev family, what does the Minister think it looks like not to have published the Intelligence and Security Committee report before the 2019 general election?

    Michael Ellis

    That is not relevant to this debate. I will tell the hon. Lady what this debate looks like: it looks like the Labour party is focusing on an individual because of who he is. It is doing so unfairly and improperly, and it is seeking to break a process. The reality, as we have heard, is that Labour Members have also supported this individual, socialised with him and sent him messages of support. There is nothing wrong with that. I do not criticise Labour Members if they have sent supportive text messages to Lord Lebedev. I do not criticise anyone in this House for doing so. As the owner of newspapers, no doubt he interacts with a large number of individuals, even though he is a Cross Bencher. What I criticise, and what I urge the House to exercise with considerable caution, is how it looks to attack an individual because of his heritage or because of his extraction. That is the key point.

    The other key point to make here is that confidentiality in respect of the process ensures that it operates in the interests of the Labour party and the Conservative party, and that the process of appointing peers of this realm is a fair and dutiful one. The probity and the confidence of the system would be compromised if we broke it. If we said that henceforth we cannot ask people to send in confidence their opinions of individuals whom the Leader of the Opposition or the Conservative party have put forward for a peerage, anyone would know in future that if they wrote to the commission in confidence it could then be out in the public domain. They would not do it and that would damage the process. I would have thought that is rather obvious.

    The Government believe that to ensure the ability of the commission to conduct robust vetting and to provide advice that is not compromised, the process should continue to be conducted confidentially, with disclosure at the discretion of the Prime Minister, who is ultimately responsible for making recommendations to Her Majesty on appointments to the Lords, or of the commission, as a body independent of Government and responsible for the vetting of nominations.

    Before I sit, I would like to address, if I may, the use today of the Humble Address procedure. The House itself has recognised the need for this process to be used responsibly. The Government response to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee’s 15th report said:

    “The Government therefore agrees with PACAC that this device should not be used irresponsibly or over-used.”

    The Procedure Committee observed in its May 2019 report:

    “The House, by its practice, has observed limitations on the power: it does not use the power to call for papers which Ministers do not have the authority to obtain, nor does it use it to obtain papers of a personal nature.”

    That is a fundamental point. Today’s motion is a breach of that process. It demonstrates why the motion is unwise and irresponsible. Motions such as the one before us today crystallise the potential tension between the use of the Humble Address procedure and the responsibility of Ministers not to release information where disclosure would not be in the public interest. We have heard it said that the particular peer himself does not mind whether that information is released, but I submit that that is irrelevant. What we seek to do is protect the process, more than the individual, and that verifies that. The responsibility of Ministers, which I take very seriously, is carefully to balance and weigh up the need for the transparency and openness that we all try to achieve against the equally important, long-standing and competing principle in respect of data protection legislation, which the motion challenges. The Government reiterated, in our response to the Procedure Committee report, the principle of restraint and caution in recognition of the importance of ensuring that the wider public interest is protected.

    Matt Western

    I thank the Minister for giving way a second time; he is being generous. I am sure we all agree how critical transparency is to our democracy. Would that in part of the process there had been any transparency in the origin or source of Lord Lebedev’s wealth, which is particularly pertinent today and has been for the past five weeks since the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The Minister may refer to a message texted to Lord Lebedev 18 months ago, but that was before the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

    Michael Ellis

    Were the hon. Gentleman to look into the matter, he would find that Lord Lebedev has, through his newspapers, publicly criticised the Putin invasion of Ukraine, as one would expect him to do. He has done so on the record.

    The motion provides a saving in respect of national security considerations, in that it would allow for the redaction of material

    “for the purposes of national security.”

    For that reason, I shall not dwell on the national security considerations in depth. I remind the House that Ministers do not comment on national security issues; nevertheless, I stress that weighty public issues are in play that should not be treated lightly.

    As I say, when we balance a commitment to transparency against the protection of information when disclosure is not in the public interest, national security is one consideration that the Government must weigh up. Rather than engage in insinuation and speculation—I am afraid that is what has been happening—in respect of matters of national security that must be handled with care and caution, I emphasise that it is and always will be Her Majesty’s Government’s absolute priority to protect the United Kingdom against foreign interference.

    It is easy for those in the media or on the Opposition Benches to cast aspersions and invite people to draw assumptions. We cannot answer points about national security in detail, but I emphasise that we in the Government will always give absolute priority to the protection of the United Kingdom from foreign interference. As proof of that, I remind the House that, as announced in the Queen’s Speech, we will introduce new legislation to provide the security services and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to disrupt state threats.

    In conclusion, the passing of the motion would have long-term and damaging consequences for the system of appointments to the peerage. It would breach the principles of confidentiality that underpin the process; impugn the reputation of an independent body and damage its ability to undertake its role; and impact on the right of individuals not to have their private lives splashed across the media at the whim of the Opposition Front-Bench team.

    Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)

    If the motion is as potentially damaging as the Minister says it is, why will Government Members not vote against it this afternoon?

    Michael Ellis

    It is quite normal practice to ignore Opposition motions; they are given the careful attention they deserve. That is common practice.

    The Government regret the fact that the official Opposition have sought to use the procedures of the House to call for the release of information which, if released, would have lasting consequences and undermine the established system of appointments to the peerage. That system has served successive Governments and it is vital to preserving the commission’s ability to undertake its role.

    Shaun Bailey

    In her speech, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) articulated quite an interesting point. I tried to prise an answer out of her in my intervention, when I asked about the idea of the commission perhaps having a veto. Whether or not we disagree with that idea, does my right hon. and learned Friend not find it interesting that the Labour party will not state its definitive position on that? What is his opinion of that? Perhaps it is because Labour wants to use the existing system at some future point to benefit itself.

    Michael Ellis

    I have the feeling it will be a very long time before the Labour party is in a position to do that from the Government Benches.

    The broader point is that the privacy rights of individuals need to be protected. The information shared to facilitate the vetting process is and must be handled carefully. It would be unwelcome for this House to set a precedent that such information is released, because, as I have said, to do so could deter individuals from putting themselves forward for such positions. I urge the House to reflect on whether the motion before us accords with the principle of restraint that Parliament has characteristically applied to the use of its powers. The passing of the motion would risk compromising the ability of an independent body to perform its role and, constitutionally, would impede the role of the Prime Minister in advising the sovereign on appointments. The process is necessarily confidential and the Government think it is unwise for the House to call for such information.

  • Angela Rayner – 2022 Speech on Lord Lebedev Joining the House of Lords

    Angela Rayner – 2022 Speech on Lord Lebedev Joining the House of Lords

    The speech made by Angela Rayner, the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, on 29 March 2022.

    Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I heard you loud and clear.

    I beg to move,

    That, given the concerns raised about the appropriateness of, and process for, appointing Lord Lebedev as a member of the House of Lords and the role of the Prime Minister in that process, an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty that she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, no later than 28 April,

    (a) any document held by the Cabinet Office or the Prime Minister’s Office containing or relating to advice from, or provided to, the House of Lords Appointments Commission concerning the appointment of Evgeny Alexandrovich Lebedev as a Member of the House of Lords; and

    (b) the minutes of, submissions relevant to and electronic communications relating to, any meeting within the Cabinet Office or the Prime Minister’s Office at which the appointment of Lord Lebedev, or advice relating to that appointment, was discussed in a form which may contain redactions, but such redactions shall be solely for the purposes of national security.

    May I start by noting the latest news from Ukraine? I know the whole House will be united in our outrage at the atrocities that have been reported, our deepest sympathy to the victims, and our ongoing support and our solidarity with the people of Ukraine. We will be united, too, in the message that we send to Putin. We will not waver in standing firm against his aggression, and the unity in this House reflects that in the country and among the constituents whom we represent.

    It is all the more important, in that context, that we make sure that we do all we can to protect our country’s security and our people’s safety. This Government’s ultimate responsibility to this House is to keep people safe, and it is all the more important that we stand up for the fundamental values of democracy in stark contrast to authoritarian regimes and dictatorships such as that in the Kremlin today. That is why we are here today—to defend our country’s security and its democracy, and to hold our Government to the highest standards in doing the same.

    Every Minister has a fundamental duty to protect the people of this country and to prioritise their safety above all else. We have tabled this motion because serious questions have been asked about whether the current Prime Minister upheld that duty to the standard that we would expect, and because those questions have not been answered with the transparency that we would expect.

    We must get to the facts of the case. An investigation by The Sunday Times found that, on 17 March 2020, British intelligence warned the House of Lords Appointments Commission against granting a peerage to the Prime Minister’s close friend, now the Lord Lebedev of Hampton and Siberia. The commission concluded it could not support his nomination. Forty-eight hours later, the Prime Minister visited Lebedev at his home in London. Details of that meeting have never been released to the public, and questions remain about whether the security services knew about this meeting, or whether their assessments show that the Kremlin was keeping tabs on these activities.

    In July 2020, Lebedev’s appointment as a peer was announced, so the question is this: what changed between the security warning and the appointment? The British public have a right to know if, and how, an individual of apparent concern to our intelligence services was granted a seat at the heart of Parliament by personal order of the Prime Minister, and whether the Prime Minister was aware of that security advice, but chose to ignore it, overrule it or even demand that it be changed.

    This is not the first time concerns have been raised about Lebedev by the British security services. As long as a decade ago, Sir John Sawers, the head of MI6, made it clear that he did not deem Lebedev a suitable person to meet. It remains unclear if the Prime Minister—then Foreign Secretary—was made aware of these security concerns, but his deeply concerning links to Putin are well known. He has been open about them on Twitter, where he has promoted the worst conspiracy theories and defences of Vladimir Putin, and raised questions over the murder of Alexander Litvinenko, the Kremlin critic poisoned in a London hotel.

    Lebedev’s father and business partner is a former KGB spy turned billionaire oligarch, who continues to fill his coffers with investments in occupied Crimea and in Russian munitions. We have heard worrying reports about the existence of a private back channel between our Prime Minister and President Putin, facilitated by Lebedev. Can the Minister shed light on this deeply concerning allegation and rule out the existence of such a back channel? As the bombing of Ukraine and the tragedy continue and the threat from Russia in the west intensifies, does the Minister think this appointment, in apparent opposition to the security services, was appropriate?

    The Cabinet Office plays a central role in the vetting process of Lords appointments. In Lord Lebedev’s case, Cabinet Office security officials were responsible for relaying the intelligence and guidance to the House of Lords Appointments Commission that formed the basis of its objections to his appointment. However, reports by The Sunday Times and a written statement by the then chief of staff to the Prime Minister allege that he “cut a deal” to provide the appointments commission with a “sanitised” version of the advice.

    Could the Minister outline how, when and why the guidance changed after communication with the Prime Minister, and could he confirm whether the Cabinet Office had sight of security advice warnings against the appointment of Lord Lebedev? This is a matter of national security, and there can be no delay in getting transparency in this case. There are also serious questions about whether the Prime Minister put his personal interests before the public interest in this case. The Prime Minister’s apparent cavalier disregard for those serious security warnings speaks to a wider culture at the heart of this Government where the rules do not apply when it comes to appointing friends and donors to public office.

    If the Prime Minister himself is willing to overrule British intelligence agencies, this raises serious questions about appointments more generally, and specifically in the House of Lords. Appointments to the Lords should be made based on integrity and contribution to our country. They are not some free pass. They are not a golden ticket for Prime Ministers to grant to their mates, like a membership of some posh London boys club, or a way to say thanks to billionaire mates after years of wining and dining, and champagne receptions and holidaying, not to mention the favourable headlines. But seriously, appointment to this Parliament should be on the basis of dedication, integrity and contribution to public life in Britain.

    Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)

    Clearly, I represent a far-flung part of the United Kingdom, and there are good and hard-working citizens who give their entire working lives for such communities. In the past, this has been recognised by means of an honour—Order of the British Empire, British Empire Medal or whatever. Can I suggest to the right hon. Lady and to everyone in this place that the Lebedev peerage cheapens the whole system of honours and reduces its value to those people who genuinely deserve to be recognised in civil society?

    Angela Rayner

    Absolutely. I fully agree with the hon. Member’s contribution. During the pandemic, we saw such dedication by our key workers, with doctors and nurses putting their lives on the line to save the lives of others.

    Instead, we see reports that the Prime Minister parachuted his close friend Lord Lebedev into the heart of the UK’s Parliament, a man with whom the Prime Minister has enjoyed a decade-long courtship, which included a stay at the oligarch’s castle in 2018, where he is reported to have attended a party over the course of a weekend, with all his flights and accommodation paid for by Lebedev. An investigation by The Guardian revealed that during his stay, the Prime Minister, who was then Foreign Secretary, is reported to have met Alexander Lebedev, the former KGB agent and father of Lord Lebedev. The party took place just days after the Prime Minister—then Foreign Secretary—attended a NATO meeting to discuss the response to the Salisbury poisoning, in which the nerve agent Novichok was used in an assassination attempt on the Skripals. Immediately following the meeting in which Putin’s deadly attack on British soil was discussed, the Prime Minister reportedly ditched his security protection to attend the Lebedev party, where a former KGB agent was in attendance. The Prime Minister seems more interested in attending parties with his Russian billionaire mates than listening to the concerns of the British security services.

    Culture is set from the top. Appointments matter. Politicians come and go, but Lord Lebedev will be a permanent fixture of our Parliament in the other place for decades. There is a serious precedent to be set in this case about how Parliament chooses to appoint those who represent us. It also raises serious questions about the relaxed vetting process of Lords appointments, creating a security risk at the heart of our democracy. This must be taken seriously, and for that reason I ask the Minister this: will there be a review of the House of Lords appointment process?

    We must ensure that a robust vetting system is in place that safeguards our democracy and ensures transparency for the public. Indeed, the Lord Speaker recently called for a more rigorous appointment process for peers. We have a Prime Minister who appears willing to jeopardise the security of the British public for the sake of a personal friendship. The culture is set from the top, and in this case it raises much wider concerns about public appointments. It is time for the Prime Minister to come clean today about whether and why he interfered with British intelligence to award a peerage to his close personal friend. The full Cabinet Office guidance about a peerage for Mr Lebedev, which was mysteriously airbrushed, must now be published in the national interest. The Prime Minister claims that that advice cannot be published because it will undermine confidence in the appointments process. Well, it is a bit late for that. This is about his actions. He has run roughshod over the integrity of the process, and put his own interests before those of Britain.

    Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)

    I am sorry to intervene on my right hon. Friend and I hope speak later in the debate, but I thought she should be aware that since this debate started, Lord Lebedev has been tweeting furiously, implying the inappropriateness of this House to even have this debate. That from a Member of the other place is completely unacceptable and, if I may advise Lord Lebedev, extremely unwise.

    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)

    If what the right hon. Gentleman says is correct—I have no reason to doubt him although I have not seen the content of the tweets—let me say that if it was inappropriate for any debate to be occurring in this Chamber, it would not be occurring.

    Hon. Members

    Hear, hear.

    Angela Rayner

    Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Woe betide anyone who tells Madam Deputy Speaker what is or is not appropriate for debate in this Chamber.

    By his actions the Prime Minister has run roughshod over the integrity of the process, and put his own interests before those of Britain. The suggestion that questions of suitability are for the Prime Minister alone will not cut it. When it is a clear as day that he so flagrantly disregarded advice and intervened in this process, I suggest that it is he who has undermined that process time and again.

    Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)

    I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way and apologise for interrupting her. Is it the Labour party’s position that the House of Lords Appointments Commission should have a veto? Given that it is part of her shadow portfolio, I am keen to understand. She is talking about the Prime Minister’s role in this, but does she believe that the House of Lords Appointments Commission should have that veto?

    Angela Rayner

    The hon. Gentleman makes a point, but the point I am making is that security advice was given, and the commission made a recommendation. If the Prime Minister overrides that advice, surely we should have a reason and transparency about why he went against the advice of the security services and the commission. That is very important and a robust way of dealing with things.

    Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)

    According to allegations in The Sunday Times, the Prime Minister went to visit the now Lord Lebedev about the advice he had been given by security services, and to assure him that he wanted to give him this peerage, at a time when coronavirus was raging, businesses were being asked to close, and schools were about to be asked to shut. That was a priority for the Prime Minister when the rest of us were having to put our entire lives on hold. Does the right hon. Lady think that is an appropriate priority for the Prime Minister in the middle of a national and global crisis?

    Angela Rayner

    The hon. Lady makes a good point, and no, I do not think that is a good priority. I cannot get into concerns about what the Prime Minister thought was appropriate under his own lockdown rules during this debate, because it is not on the motion.

    These dangerous links to Putin’s oligarchs threaten our national security, but today we can take a step to defend it. There can be no better answer to the aggression of a dictator than to show that in a democracy, our leaders answer to the country they serve. The Minister should stop hiding behind the excuses and denials that we have heard about why we cannot have this transparency. I urge the House: let us get to the facts behind this whole murky business, publish the advice, and come clean with the British people. I commend the motion to the House.

  • Lindsay Hoyle – 2022 Statement on the Behaviour of MPs in the Chamber

    Lindsay Hoyle – 2022 Statement on the Behaviour of MPs in the Chamber

    The statement made by Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker of the House of Commons, in the House on 24 February 2022.

    Before we come to the business questions, I wish to say something about the conduct of Prime Minister’s questions. PMQs are an important opportunity for the House to hold the Prime Minister to account. It is important that they are conducted according to the rules of the House, that we have an opportunity for as many Members to question the Prime Minister as possible in the given time, and that the Prime Minister and those asking him questions can be heard. I want to address three issues that were raised yesterday and are relevant to that.

    First, the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) made criticisms of the conduct of the right hon. Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer). Those types of criticisms may only be made if the House is considering a substantive motion that deals with them. They may not be made as sideswipes during questions or during debates on other matters. That is to avoid our question times and debates descending into partisan accusations and counter-accusations. I know that the hon. Member for Bradford East understands the issue and that he has apologised to the right hon. Member for Sherwood.

    Secondly, I want to address the issue of the length of questions and answers. I wish to call as many Members as possible. Sometimes we have over-long answers, and I often have to interrupt Ministers when that is the case, but sometimes the questions themselves are far too long. They are meant to be questions, not statements followed by a question, and I hope that Members will consider others rather than themselves. We saw a little bit of that yesterday from the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). Considering that a certain amount of time is made available to the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Scottish National party, the remaining time is limited and I have to make sure it is used as effectively and fairly as possible. If Members take too long with their questions, they take away the opportunity for other Members to ask questions. When a Member is asking an over-lengthy question, I try to give them an opportunity to come to an end before stopping them, as I did yesterday. There is nothing personal about that, and I routinely have to call Members on all sides to account for the length of questions. I plead with all Members to keep questions focused and brief.

    Finally, I want to deal with a related issue. It is not always easy to ask short, snappy questions when other Members are shouting and barracking. There was far too much of that yesterday, with a disproportionate amount of it coming from the Government Benches, and particularly from those at the side of the Chair, which made it very hard to hear what was being said. I hope that those on the Government Benches will take this on board, and in particular that the Chief Whip will deal with some of his crowd at the side of the Chair. If Members persist in making excessive noise and barracking colleagues, they will be asked to leave the Chamber.

    We want PMQs to be a showcase for this House and for our democracy, so I say to all hon. and right hon. Members: please respect the rules of the House about how we refer to each other; make questions and answers concise; and behave with dignity in a way that allows questions and answers to be heard.

  • Sir John Major – 2022 Speech at Institute for Government

    Sir John Major – 2022 Speech at Institute for Government

    The speech made by Sir John Major, the former Prime Minister, on 10 February 2022.

    We are living through a time of uncertainty and political turbulence – at home and overseas.

    At home, we take democracy for granted: we should not. It is far more complex than simply having the right to vote.

    In many countries, there is a widespread discontent of the governed, and democracy is in retreat. Nor is it in a state of grace in the UK.

    In the last decades of the 20th Century, the number of democratic countries grew dramatically: the arbiter of civil liberties, Freedom House, classified 110 nations as democratic.

    Democrats were so confident that their way of Government was the wave of the future that they stopped arguing for it.

    Their confidence was premature.

    In each of the last fifteen years, democracy has shrunk a little, as political and civil liberties have been diminished.

    In many countries, democracy has never taken root. Where it has, it risks being weakened by populism – often with added xenophobia, or muzzled by elected autocracy.

    It is challenged by protest groups or new – and more extreme – political movements. Even our great allies in the United States are facing populist attacks on their democracy.

    We should beware: when America sneezes, we often catch their cold.

    Good government has a duty to deliver unwelcome messages to electors.

    This is not easy in a world in which politicians are under continuous scrutiny from an uncontrolled internet, a 24 hour media, and an increasing number of impatient special interest groups.

    Under this spotlight, unwise promises are made to placate critics or win votes and – when these are not met – the public loses a little more faith.

    The hard truth is that, while government can do much, it cannot do everything. All problems cannot be swiftly and painlessly resolved on demand: it is an impossible task. If politicians admit that, it earns trust and respect.

    Discontent grows when inequality widens, or incomes stagnate, or problems seem unsolvable. The benefit of the doubt – that most precious of political commodities – is lost when Governments are seen to be “failing”.

    In the last 20 years a financial crash, unpopular wars, faltering globalisation, and an unfair distribution of the benefits of growth have all contributed to the present sour resentment of government.

    Our democracy has always been among the strongest and most settled in the world. It rests on the conviction that the UK Government acts for the wellbeing of all four of our nations.

    With nationalism growing – in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland – not everyone shares that conviction.

    It relies also upon respect for the laws made in Parliament; upon an independent judiciary; upon acceptance of the conventions of public life; and on self-restraint by the powerful.

    If any of that delicate balance goes astray – as it has – as it is – our democracy is undermined. Our Government is culpable, in small but important ways, of failing to honour these conventions.

    Where Governments fall short, candour is the best means of binding up support.

    But that candour must be freely offered – not dragged out under the searchlight of Inquiries. If it is not whole-hearted and convincing, the loss of public trust can be swift and unforgiving.

    We have seen that playing out in recent weeks. Trust in politics is at a low ebb, eroded by foolish behaviour, leaving a sense of unease about how our politics is being conducted.

    Too often, Ministers have been evasive, and the truth has been optional.

    When Ministers respond to legitimate questions with pre-prepared soundbites, or half-truths, or misdirection, or wild exaggeration, then respect for government and politics dies a little more.

    Misleading replies to questions invite disillusion. Outright lies breed contempt.

    In our democracy, we are able to speak truth to power. But, if democracy is to be respected, power must also speak truth to the people.

    And yet, in recent years, they have not been doing so.

    There has been cynicism about politics from the dawn of time. We are told that politicians are “all the same”, and this untruth conditions electors to condone lies as though they were the accepted currency of public life.

    But politicians are not “all the same”. And lies are just not acceptable.

    To imply otherwise is to cheapen public life, and slander the vast majority of elected politicians who do not knowingly mislead.

    But some do – and their behaviour is corrosive. This tarnishes both politics and the reputation of Parliament. It is a dangerous trend.

    If lies become commonplace, truth ceases to exist. What and who, then, can we believe? The risk is …. nothing and no-one. And where are we then?

    Parliament is an echo chamber. Lies can become accepted as fact, which – as The Speaker has pointed out – has consequences for policy and for reputation.

    That is why deliberate lies to Parliament have been fatal to political careers – and must always be so.

    If trust in the word of our leaders in Parliament is lost – then trust in Government will be lost too.

    At No10, the Prime Minister and officials broke lockdown laws.

    Brazen excuses were dreamed up. Day after day the public was asked to believe the unbelievable. Ministers were sent out to defend the indefensible – making themselves look gullible or foolish.

    Collectively, this has made the Government look distinctly shifty, which has consequences that go far beyond political unpopularity.

    No Government can function properly if its every word is treated with suspicion. A report by the Constitution Unit of UCL tells us that the public trust the Courts more than the Civil Service; the Civil Service more than Parliament; and Parliament more than the Prime Minister.

    The lack of trust in the elected portion of our democracy cannot be brushed aside. Parliament has a duty to correct this.

    If it does not, and trust is lost at home, our politics is broken.

    If trust in our word is lost overseas, we may no longer be able to work effectively with friends and partners for mutual benefit – or even security.

    Unfortunately, that trust is being lost, and our reputation overseas has fallen because of our conduct. We are weakening our influence in the world.

    We should be wary. Even a casual glance at overseas comment shows our reputation is being shredded. A nation that loses friends and allies becomes a weaker nation.

    And when Ministers attack or blame foreign governments, to gain populist support at home, we are not taken seriously. Megaphone diplomacy merely increases hostility overseas. International trust may not be easy to regain.

    * * * * * *

    Our way of life is built around the maintenance of Law. The public expects our Government to work within the Law and the accepted rules of public life.

    It was unprecedented when this Government broke the Law by proroguing Parliament, to avoid debates on Brexit that might not have gone as they wished.

    I had promised, in a BBC interview, that if the Government attempted to muzzle Parliament I would challenge their action in Court.

    So I did – though not as swiftly as the civil rights campaigner, Gina Miller. Lawyers presented our cases separately but they were, in essence, identical.

    Both our challenges were upheld unanimously by the Supreme Court, who ruled that the Government’s actions were un-lawful.

    “It was,” the Court said, “impossible to conclude there was any reason, let alone a good reason” for proroguing Parliament for five weeks in the run up to Brexit.

    The Prime Minister said he “disagreed” with the Court, and the then Leader of the House accused the Supreme Court Judges of “a constitutional coup”. The Government accepted the verdict, but in bad faith. It did not apologise – nor mend its ways.

    It went on to introduce legislation, giving the Government the power to break International Law, albeit – as one Minister conceded – “in a limited but specific way”. Fortunately, the issue fell away, but it was a proposal that should never have been put forward.

    It cut overseas aid – which Parliament had set at 0.7% GDP – without the prior approval of Parliament (although this was obtained retrospectively).

    And this is the Government that fought a referendum to “protect the Sovereignty of Parliament” and the sanctity of domestic law.

    All of this is against the backdrop of the Prime Minister being investigated for several apparent breaches of the Ministerial Code.

    He chose to ignore critical reports on his Ministers; rejected advice from his independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards – who resigned; and attempted – but failed – to overturn a unanimous Standards Select Committee Report that condemned the behaviour of a Parliamentary colleague and friend.

    It may be possible to find excuses for each of these lapses – and others – but all of them, taken together, tell a different tale.

    The Prime Minister and our present Government not only challenge the Law, but also seem to believe that they – and they alone – need not obey the rules, traditions, conventions – call them what you will – of public life.

    The charge that there is one law for the Government, and one for everyone else is politically deadly – and it has struck home.

    Our democracy requires that the truth and the Law should be respected and obeyed – above all, by the Government. But, sometimes, it seems that – even if it is obeyed – it is not always respected.

    When a leading tabloid labelled Judges “enemies of the people” the Justice Secretary did not leap to their defence. Other Cabinet Ministers publicly disparaged “leftie lawyers”, “activist lawyers”, and attacked Judges for “exceeding their authority”.

    Public denunciation of Judges and lawyers gives credence to the belief that the Government wishes to usher in a compliant Judiciary.

    It should back off.

    The late Lord Bingham, one of our greatest Judges, once remarked that there “are countries where the Judges always agree with the Government – but they are not countries in which any of us would like to live”. That was true then – and is true today.

    There have also been attempted assaults on civil rights – not all of them successful. The Government briefed, but rowed back from, a serious attack on Judicial Review: but the intent was there and may return.

    It proposed legislation to allow the Police to “stop and search” anyone at a protest meeting “without any cause for suspicion”.

    It attempted to legislate to allow the Police to impose conditions on protest marches likely to be “noisy”. These are not the only examples.

    Apart from being unworkable, such proposals would have alienated the public from the Police. I recall anti-Poll Tax marches, anti-war marches and anti-Brexit marches which attracted huge numbers – and were certainly noisy. Would these have been banned?

    The intent of these protestors was not to prevent the public from going about their normal lives. These protestors were the public, expressing deeply-felt opposition to Government policy.

    But – although they may be uncomfortable for any government – protest marches are a safety valve for free speech. Democracy should treat them with care.

    The Government was lucky that the House of Lords rejected these proposals, but there is no certainty they will not return in another Bill.

    Such a denial of civil rights is wrong in principle, and in practice.

    If the power of the State grows, and the protections of the Law diminish, then the liberties of the individual fall.

    The Mother of Parliaments should not permit this.

    * * * * * * *

    We British are a kindly people. When appeals are made for those in distress – at home or abroad – the good heart of our nation responds with compassion and generosity.

    But, increasingly, across the Western world, populist pressure leads Governments to be less generous to refugees, asylum seekers and migrants.

    At present, an estimated 70 million people are displaced – three times as many as at the end of the Second World War. In the next 30 years, climate change may force a further 143 million people to leave their homes.

    To this, we must add unknown numbers of families fleeing from intolerable hardship and repression.

    The problem is huge and growing. It needs a collaborative and international solution to help refugees, and protect the target communities that now bear the burden. Without such an approach, the next generation will inherit an insoluble problem.

    In America, they build walls to keep migrants out. In Europe, they build camps to keep them in.

    Here, in the UK, the Government wishes to remove British citizenship from dual nationals, without any notice or right of appeal.

    It proposes serious action against criminal gangs that traffic migrants – and rightly so. But it also proposes to criminalise the migrants themselves.

    We should search our souls before doing this.

    Can it really be a crime to be frightened; homeless; desperate; destitute; fleeing from persecution, or war, or famine, or hardship; and to cross half the world on foot and dangerous waters in an unsafe boat, in the hope of finding a better life?

    Of course, if the numbers are too large, this creates an appalling problem for local communities. But surely, to seek sanctuary from an unbearable life cannot – morally – be treated as a crime?

    Yet, the Government’s Border Bill proposes to punish asylum seekers who take an unsanctioned route, with a jail sentence of up to four years.

    There must be a better way to protect areas such as Kent, than filling our prisons with miserable unfortunates, whose only real crime is to seek a better life.

    Prison – for these refugees – is punishment without compassion.

    I do sympathise with the awful problem facing the Government. But these proposals are not natural justice, and are decidedly un-British.

    I hope the Government will reconsider.

    * * * * * * *

    The UK has long been admired for having the highest standards in public life. We are not perfect. There is no golden age. But, for generations, we have been seen to set an example for others to follow.

    Many years ago, in the wake of a scandal that became known as “Cash for Questions”, I set up the Nolan Committee on Standards in Public Life.

    Nolan set out guidelines to guard against poor behaviour.

    Recently, in a comprehensive Report, the Committee – now under the Chairmanship of Lord Evans of Weardale – reported that we need more rigorous enforcement of ethical standards.

    It would be reassuring if the appointment of the guardians of ethics was fully independent and – where appropriate – new powers to initiate, investigate and report were put on a statutory basis.

    In a Foreword to this Report, I endorsed the Committee’s commendations in full, and I hope the Prime Minister will accept them without delay.

    If the Prime Minister were to agree to this, it would help to regain the UK’s reputation as the standard for democracy; for fairness; for honesty; and for pragmatic commonsense in protecting our national interests.

    That reputation, built up by our predecessors, is invaluable to our national interests: it should be protected, not demolished.

    * * * * * * *

    The style of the Government creates its own problems. It looks for enemies where there are none. Moreover, it then chooses the wrong enemies.

    Most recently, it has been waging campaigns against the Civil Service and the BBC. In neither case is this wise – or justified – or even in the Government’s own interests.

    The Civil Service is the support structure to government: treating it as a hostile “blob” which seeks to undermine the Government is both foolish and wrong.

    As for the BBC, it is a crucial part of our overseas “soft power”, and a policy of undermining it and starving it of funds is self-defeating for UK interests.

    Ministers should remember that both these institutions are more trusted than the Government itself. They should focus their attention on reforms to improve public life.

    * * * * * * *

    Finally ……

    There is rarely a good time for a bad idea, but sometimes – when faced with the alternatives – a bad idea can appeal. So it is with the funding of politics.

    The present funding of our democratic system leaves it prey to special interests. The Conservative Party is too dependent upon business and a small number of very wealthy donors.

    The Labour Party is in hock to trades unions, and a different cadre of donors. Minor Parties are also obligated to funders.

    This carries risks that besmirch politics. Many believe – sometimes, but not always, wrongly – that Honours are offered as a reward for funding our democratic system: that donors are given access to Ministers, and are able to influence policy.

    It is a perception that corrupts our system. The Honours system is cheapened. And the political system is made to look corrupt. This damages democracy.

    It is time to re-focus on how our politics is funded. The system needs cleansing. It must never be the plaything of the rich, nor of pressure groups, yet no-one wants our politics fully funded by the State. Certainly, I don’t.

    Legislation should limit funding by individuals, by companies, by trades unions, to sums that no-one can reasonably claim would entitle the donor to favours, rewards, or undesirable access.

    Donors must not be seen to sway policy through an open cheque book.

    If a restriction on donations means an increased level of public funding of political Parties, of elections, of referendums, then so be it.

    I don’t like this outcome, but it is the lesser of the evils and – despite my distaste – it is a price worth paying if it removes any suggestion of corrupt advantage, and restores the reputation of representative democracy.

    “One man, one vote” is a sound principle: and this essential fairness should not risk being undermined by any one man and his money.

    * * * * * * *

    Our democracy is a fragile structure: it is not an impenetrable fortress. It can fall if no-one challenges what is wrong, or does not fight for what is right.

    The protection of democracy depends upon Parliament and the Government upholding the values we have as individuals, and the trust we inspire as a nation.

    But these values cannot be partial; cannot be occasional; cannot be taken out and paraded for political convenience. They are eternal.

    Democracy is a life-long companion, not a passing fancy.

    Trust, integrity and values are the structure upon which our democracy is founded.

    If they are rooted in our politics and our way of life, they provide a pathway to take any child from the backstreets of their youth, to the pinnacle of their ambition.

    We must protect this way of life. It is more precious than any Government, any political party, or any individual.

    * * * * * * *

    For many years, travelling the world, I have been received as the lucky representative of the most stable democracy of them all.

    The UK was seen as the democracy, tested by time, whose virtues had built the Mother of Parliaments and a free, independent – and fair – legal system that was widely copied. All held together by a language that united the world.

    We were seen as the free-est of nations, safe in our island, with allies and partners in every corner of our world. It was a position of influence, built up over centuries – envied, praised and copied.

    All of this gave the UK a unique position in the world. It was not simply the influence of military or political power – but of example, which is as important as trust.

    And trust matters.

    It matters for self-respect. It matters for gentle persuasion. It matters for hard, uncomfortable decision-making.

    It matters to our Parliament. It matters to our country. It matters to our United Kingdom. It matters in how we are perceived by others near and far.

    And it matters for the long-term protection and wellbeing of democracy.

  • Keir Starmer – 2022 Speech on Trust in Politics

    Keir Starmer – 2022 Speech on Trust in Politics

    The speech made by Keir Starmer, the Leader of the Opposition, on 3 February 2022.

    Thank you for hosting me here today and for that fascinating presentation. How shocking these figures are!

    I want to give a few brief reflections on them and what I think they mean for politics, for government and for business in the UK.

    Of course, I am concerned to see trust in so many institutions fall – in some cases to an unprecedented low.

    But I also want to set out a way forward.

    Because trust counts – and I’m not prepared to give up on it.

    The start point is to be honest with ourselves and face up to the scale of the challenge.

    Trust in government is falling.

    Trust in politics and politicians is falling.

    Trust in the media is falling.

    Two thirds of the public think that the way politicians act undermines democracy.

    Six out of ten people think politicians are likely to lie to them.

    Six out of ten!

    Sadly, that doesn’t surprise me given recent events.

    But it does disappoint me – it frustrates me.

    But honestly – I’m not surprised.

    It’s inevitable when we have a government that is misleading the public and covering up their own wrongdoing to save the Prime Minister’s job.

    This is a government in paralysis.

    Instead of representing the people who elected them and addressing the challenges the country faces, they are intent on saving themselves not serving the country.

    The cost of living is rising.

    Prices and taxes are up and wages are stagnant.

    While the whole country worries about how they will pay those bills when they come, this government is too pre- occupied to act.

    This government has let them down.

    No wonder the public don’t trust them.

    But we all suffer from this decline in trust.

    The appeal of democracy has always been based on two promises.

    The first is that the world will get better; democracy will deliver.

    The second is that people will be listened to; democracy will empower.

    Both of those promises rely on trust.

    And, right now that trust is in short supply.

    Small wonder the public is more pessimistic than they have been in years.

    They are pessimistic about their own security and standards of life.

    They expect things will just get worse over the next five years.

    They doubt the truth of what they hear from political leaders and from the media.

    And they feel shut out of the whole political system.

    Just 3 in 10 people feel they have the power to influence politics with their vote.

    And almost 6 out of 10 say they feel powerless as a citizen to affect change.

    For too long too many people have felt that politics has been removed from them.

    While they play by the rules, politics is not delivering its side of the bargain, even at the most basic level.

    Trust is not easily rebuilt but we really must do better than this.

    We are better than this

    And I am well aware that just because the Tories lose the public’s trust

    It doesn’t mean Labour simply inherits it.

    Trust has to be earned.

    I am confident but not complacent about the task ahead.

    I want to make a concrete commitment about decency and standards in public life.

    Of course, these standards already exist.

    They are known as the Nolan principles.

    Selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty, leadership.

    I shouldn’t have to pledge to honour these principles but, sadly, I feel I do.

    So my solemn promise to you will always be to run a government that honours these principles.

    I believe in making credible promises that we will deliver – the very opposite of government by meaningless slogans.

    I would like to say a bit more about how a Labour government would be different.

    I want to start with the partnership that we would like to strike with British business.

    Business was one of the encouraging stories from today’s survey launch.

    It is heartening to see the high trust that workers place in their employers.

    I know the great value that employers and business can offer.

    It’s something I saw growing up in my parents’ work.

    My father was a toolmaker.

    My mother worked as a nurse.

    And the thing that I really remember from my dad was how hard he worked.

    His industry was a real source of pride and value.

    I was encouraged to see how business is seen as leaders in society, with solutions to some of the big challenges of the day.

    British business is a real source of pride, both here in the UK and internationally.

    Many businesses are driven by a sense of purpose.

    Determined to meet the challenge of the climate crisis.

    Supporting the changes we need to make to protect our future.

    Today’s report shows the public’s expectation that business will continue to show leadership on the big future issues.

    Half of the public think business should do more, not less, on climate change.

    44% think business can go further on workforce reskilling.

    But business alone cannot be expected to carry the trust of this country.

    Business can only lead when it has the support of a serious government.

    That’s why I believe that British business needs a more active, effective partnership with government.

    And that government needs an industrial strategy designed to get our country fit to face the future.

    The Director of the CBI, Tony Danker, has been clear about what’s needed: supporting business to invest, he says, will require ‘catalytic public investment’.

    That’s what Labour’s climate investment pledge does – £28bn every year for each and every year of the next decade – to ensure the industries and jobs of the future are found all across Britain.

    The business community and the political world need to work together.

    We both have a job to do.

    So what would Labour do?

    Earlier this year, I took the opportunity to set out a vision for government worthy of the British public.

    I set out my contract with the British people.

    Something tangible that you can see and go back to, so you know how a Labour government will lead, and what to expect.

    My contract will be founded on three principles; Security, Prosperity and Respect.

    All of these are critical for rebuilding trust.

    The public need security.

    Only when you feel secure in your own life, can you trust that things will be okay.

    That is clear in this year’s Trust Barometer report.

    Those who work hard but lack economic security are less likely and less able, to place trust in the institutions around them.

    Of course they are gaps in trust between high and low earners in the UK is one of the highest compared to other countries internationally.

    And we have seen in the data today that lower income earners are much more likely to think the UK economic system doesn’t work for them.

    Labour is focused on bringing security back to people across Britain.

    We would improve security of employment through our New Deal for Working People.

    And we would improve economic security for thousands right now by keeping energy bills down as the cost of living bites.

    But to provide this security, our nation needs to be prosperous.

    Prosperity is the second principle in my contract – and, let’s be honest, right now Britain is not as dynamic, competitive and profitable as we need to be.

    Our industrial strategy will drive productivity and ensure we Buy, Make and Sell more in Britain.

    Supporting the industries of this country which have so much potential, and so much opportunity to make us proud.

    We would scrap and replace business rates with a much fairer alternative to incentivise investment.

    We will invest in green industries creating jobs all around the country

    And we will make Brexit work so British business can thrive.

    The last principle of my contract is perhaps the most important for building trust.

    That is Respect.

    The public deserves a government that respects them.

    A government that listens, hears, and responds.

    A government that empowers them to take local decisions for themselves.

    And we all deserve a Government that is respectful of tax-payers money and how it is spent.

    The Chancellor has just written off £4.3bn of fraud, stolen from the Government during Covid.

    Under Labour, this would not happen.

    The fiscal rules that my shadow chancellor, Rachel Reeves, has set out, will be the framework for responsible spending, and our Office for Value for Money will account for every pound.

    So despite the gloomy outlook for trust right now in the UK, I do have hope.

    There are opportunities to earn back trust and I am clear how Labour would go about the task.

    By delivering security, prosperity and respect for British people throughout this country.

    Because we simply cannot go on with trust being eroded in every British institution.

    It is often said that the Prime Minister doesn’t believe the rules apply to him.

    That he has a sense of entitlement which transcends the normal rules of politics.

    I think it is considerably worse than that.

    It isn’t that the Prime Minister thinks the rules don’t apply.

    He absolutely knows that they do.

    His strategy is to devalue the rules so they don’t matter to anyone anymore.

    So, that politics becomes contaminated.

    Cynicism and alienation replace confidence and trust.

    So that the taunt “politicians are just in it for themselves” becomes accepted wisdom.

    It is a strategy to sow disillusion; to convince people that things can’t get better; government can’t improve people’s lives; progress isn’t possible because politics doesn’t work.

    But I’m not going to play the Prime Minister’s game.

    I simply refuse to accept that Britain can’t be governed better than this.

    I will never give up on the power of politics to be a force for good.

    And I will always fight to defend those essential British values of honesty, decency and integrity.

    We don’t have to accept the repeated lies from the dispatch box.

    Or the casual devaluing of the office that does so much damage around the world.

    As DPP, I prosecuted MPs over their expenses.

    And today I refuse to turn a blind eye to the dodgy practices in Downing Street.

    I won’t simply shrug my shoulders at the dishonesty and disrespect on the basis that it is “priced in”.

    That’s why I said line one of my contract with the British public would be the return of the Nolan principles to public life.

    My solemn vow is that the government I lead will govern in the public interest.

    Where standards stand for something; where truth means something and where honesty is at the heart of everything that it does.

    The health of our democracy depends on it.

    We cannot give up on all the good that is here in the UK: good businesses, good ideas, good people.

    We must rebuild public trust in our institutions, raise public trust in our industries, and build a country that works together, united, for its future success.

    No matter what damage has been inflicted by this government, I believe this can change.

    It’s time for a change.

    Together we can build a Britain fit to face the future so I hope very much to be able to return here in a few years’ time with that presentation telling a different story.

    A story of rising trust, with a Labour Government.

    Of a democracy in which trust is restored and people can once more expect integrity from their government.

    Thank you.

  • Layla Moran – 2022 Tribute to Jack Dromey

    Layla Moran – 2022 Tribute to Jack Dromey

    The tribute made by Layla Moran, the Liberal Democrat MP for Oxford West and Abingdon, in the House of Commons on 2 February 2022.

    To the tributes already paid, I add the profound sympathies of both myself and all the Liberal Democrats who sit on these Benches. As a relatively new Member of the Commons, I confess that I did not know Jack that well, but what I did know I really, really liked.

    I first met him in a mindfulness meditation class, which he, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and I attended with other MPs as we sought to find some calm in the storm of the 2017 to 2019 Parliament. I dare say that it was, at times, hilariously awkward. I remember Jack taking those classes with great humour. He oozed wisdom and kindness, and I think it was that shared experience that meant that, when we caught each other’s eye while passing each other in the Lobby, he would ask how I was, and he really meant it. Since his passing, I have learned that that kind man, whom I liked so much, had a similar effect on pretty much everyone he met. The tributes today are proof of how respected he was across the political spectrum. While a trade union man through and through, he was a pragmatist. He would work with anyone who could deliver his aims and shared his values.

    Part of Jack’s appeal and great strength was that he was so obviously driven by his values and by a deep desire to help people. Quite simply, Jack Dromey was one of the good guys. I think it says it all that he worked to the last. In that final debate on Afghanistan, he urged Parliament and the Government to take a more compassionate approach to those in the world who need us the most and said:

    “Our country has a proud history of providing a safe haven to those fleeing persecution.”

    He also spoke of our country’s most fundamental values

    “of decency, honesty and fairness.”—[Official Report, 6 January 2022; Vol. 706, c. 129WH.]

    Jack embodied those values.

    To the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham, to their children, Harry, Joe and Amy, and to the whole family, there are no words, but I hope that from today’s tributes they can take some comfort in knowing the impact that Jack had and how he affected not just this House but the whole country.

  • Andrew Mitchell – 2022 Tribute to Jack Dromey

    Andrew Mitchell – 2022 Tribute to Jack Dromey

    The tribute made by Andrew Mitchell, the Conservative MP for Sutton Coldfield, in the House of Commons on 2 February 2022.

    It is a privilege and an honour to speak today about Jack, who I am proud to call my friend and colleague in this place. He was my parliamentary neighbour, as his constituency inside Birmingham city ran alongside the royal town of Sutton Coldfield, and there were many mutual issues affecting our constituents, on which we worked seamlessly, constructively and enjoyably together.

    Jack’s arrival in Birmingham was somewhat unexpected, not least because those of us keenly watching the outcome of the selection contest had been advised that this was an all-women shortlist, but we quickly established a rapport. The thing I learnt early on about Jack was that he was a brilliant negotiator. Faced with a brick wall, his instinct was not to pound his way through it, but to skilfully manoeuvre around it wherever possible. And he was ineffably charming and patient. He had a considerable knack locally of bringing people of different persuasions to common positions. He did it at times of great anxiety in the automotive industry in the west midlands with Caroline Spelman, our former colleague from Meriden, with West Midlands Mayor Andy Street and, most recently, with me working on Afghans coming to Birmingham from Kabul.

    All of which leads me, finally, to a story about Jack’s negotiating powers and—forgive me for name dropping, Mr Speaker—about his relationship with the Marquis of Salisbury, a former colleague in this place, Conservative Minister and Member for South Dorset, Robert Cranbourne. When his lordship was a Defence Minister, he held regular meetings with the unions in Whitehall. These meetings sometimes ran for four hours and meaningful results were slow in being achieved, but during particularly drawn-out moments the Marquis, as he is now, would catch the eye of the then senior trade union negotiator, as he then was, Jack Dromey. After one such meeting, his lordship rang up Jack to suggest that it would perhaps be better if they sorted out the business beforehand, possibly over lunch, and, to Robert’s relief, Jack willingly agreed. “Where should we go?” asked Jack, to which the Marquis replied, “I wonder if you might like to come to White’s, my club in St. James’s,” to which Jack replied, “Ah, I’ve always wanted to go there.”

    And so affairs of state and the Ministry of Defence were congenially sorted out by these two distinguished public servants. On the first occasion, as various chiselled-featured members of the British establishment walked through the club’s hallowed portals, Jack drank orange juice, but on the final occasion, after a particularly successful negotiation had been concluded, glasses of vintage port were consumed. As he stepped out on to the street, Jack thanked his lordship for his kind hospitality, and as he left said over his shoulder, “By the way, please don’t tell Harriet where we’ve been. And especially do not mention the vintage port!” [Laughter.] For the avoidance of doubt, Mr Speaker, I can of course confirm that this was a workplace event. [Laughter.]

    As we remember an adopted son of Birmingham taken from us far, far too soon, let us remember the words of Harry, Jack and Harriet’s son, who with both sadness and pride spoke of the quality, but not alas the quantity, of the years they all had together.