Business of the House

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Thursday 27th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

The SNP amendments to the Online Safety Bill were tabled by the original deadline of July, so I can only assume that the amendments that Members are being allowed extra time to consider are those that have been tabled by the Government. Can the Leader of the House please confirm that, when the Online Safety Bill comes back, hopefully, makes progress and goes through to the Lords, it will not do so with another swathe of Government amendments that will make the Bill unrecognisable?

[Penny Mordaunt]

Future business will be announced in the usual way, but I heard the hon. Lady. The reason why this has been delayed that I gave earlier is correct. It is simply to allow more time for hon. Members to look at the amendments.

Business of the House

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Thursday 22nd September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to statements that have been issued on this matter. I do not think it an issue that should be debated at length on the Floor of this House. I assure him that everything he would expect to be done is being done, but it is not a matter for debate here.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Trussell Trust figures from this summer show that four in 10 of those on universal credit were already skipping meals. Given that there will be another price hike in the next few days, does the Leader of the House expect to be timetabling in yet another fiscal statement, or does she expect our constituents to simply starve?

[Penny Mordaunt]

I suggest that the hon. Lady comes to the House tomorrow and raises those issues directly with the Chancellor. I know it is his intention to set out the plan for growth and how that will assist her constituents, and she will have ample time to question him then and in the future.

Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Tuesday 12th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mark Spencer]

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

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

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

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

[Mark Spencer]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

First, I want to note an interest, in that I am on the sponsor board; I have been the SNP’s delegate to it for a hugely long time now. I must apologise for the fact that I am not my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who is unfortunately on Committee business and cannot be here, so Members are stuck with me. I will do my best—probably not with quite the flair that he would normally bring to this—to fill his shoes in some way.

I agree with the point that the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) just made. The fact that we are here—that this position has been reached—is indefensible. The SNP’s position has been that this is an absolutely horrible building to work in. It is dreadful for our staff, it is a grim place to work and it is not a nice working environment. As a result of that, of the colossal amount of money involved and of the fact that we do not want to be here—we are going to be an independent country, and we are going to toddle off and leave yous to it—we suggested that if others were going to do anything with restoration and renewal, they should build a new Parliament. That will cost far less money than anything they could possibly do with this one. For our staff and people who work in this building, and for future MPs and staff who work in this building, it would be a significantly better and safer working environment. However, that was rejected.

We agreed an Act of Parliament—an Act of Parliament —about how this was going to work. The Act said, “Right, we’re going to have a sponsor board and a Sponsor Body, and we’re going to have a delivery board and a Delivery Authority. We’re going to have all of those things, and they are all going to work together in a groove and deliver what the House has said they are going to deliver.” The Sponsor Body, led by the sponsor board, came up with the memorandum of understanding between the Sponsor Body and the House, and that huge and massively detailed document explained exactly how things would work.

It feels as though the House of Commons Commission —although not so much the Lords one—and successive Leaders of the House gave argued at every opportunity about how this was going to work. They have said, “Actually, we don’t really agree with the Act of Parliament. We need to do this differently.” It feels as though those on the Government Front Bench and, at times, other Members on the House of Commons Commission—this must have been the case—have ended up costing more and more by adding on so many extra things, coming up with new stipulations and having us do ridiculous surveys.

One of those surveys was about making this bit of the House into a bubble so that we could continue to work in it, walking here from Portcullis House with hard hats and boots on, which I do not think anybody would have much enjoyed. This would have been a bubble where we could have continued to meet, because key people cannot bear to leave this awful, leaking room that is too small for 650 MPs to sit in. If this is going to happen, and we do not agree that it should, nobody could do it in a more cack-handed way than the way it is being done.

This structure was agreed and set up by the Houses, and at every opportunity the Government and others have tried to dismantle the structure and then complained because it cost too much money. Of course it will continue to cost money if people keep moving the goalposts—if they do not really want disabled access, but they just said that in an Act of Parliament, and if they are going to complain when the Sponsor Body pitches up and says, “This is how much it will cost to have disabled access.” If they do not want it, of course what they to try to deliver is not going to suit the House. The governing structures have not worked because the Commissions want one thing, the pre-2019 Members of Parliament wanted a different thing from the post-2019 MPs, the Speaker wants something different, the Leaders of the House have wanted something different, and the sponsor board and Sponsor Body have been trying to serve all those masters, and it has proved to be impossible.

The new structure that the Leader of the House suggests will have exactly the same problems as the previous one. It will have exactly the same number of people suggesting they are the right person to make all the decisions, and that person is going to change on a regular basis—even if it only changes once in every five years, that is still on a regular basis. Ever more money will be expended while bits of masonry continue to fall off, while asbestos continues to be in this building and while the fire risk continues to be massive for a UNESCO world heritage site. This building is a relic; it is not a suitable, appropriate working environment.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I apologise to the hon. Lady for stopping her in full rant, but does she not appreciate that this is a UNESCO world heritage site and a grade 1 listed building, and whether we are in this Parliament or not, this Parliament has a responsibility to maintain it properly? How does she answer that?

[Kirsty Blackman]

Maintaining this building properly, making it safe and making it so it does not burn down is a very different thing from making it safe so it does not burn down while thousands of people work here. The majority of the fire incidents here are caused by issues with people, as are many of the safety issues. If we take the people out of the equation, it is significantly cheaper to do all that; if we only have disabled access visitor routes, we take away a huge amount of the risk that is created. We could rip out almost all the services that go up and down the vertical risers if we did not need to keep them because we need internet in office T306. Clearly, we would not need internet in office T306 if there was nobody working in this place.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

What does the hon. Lady envisage this building would become? Would it just become an empty shell, in which case it would certainly deteriorate quite quickly? What alternative use does she envisage for it?

[Kirsty Blackman]

Honestly, I do not really care: I am going to be out of here, the Scottish National party is going to be out of here, Scotland is not going to have any stake in this building, and the UK without Scotland can decide what it wants to do with the building. It is not my responsibility to make that decision; it is the responsibility of the people who will carry on being here after Scottish independence. I am not trying to dodge the question; I am just not fussed, as it is not my decision. Just as I am not really fussed about what happens with council tax rates in England, it is not my decision to make. It is the hon. Gentleman’s decision to make, and it is for the people who will be here to decide what this building should be used for in the future.

I am testing your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I have spoken for a bit longer than I had intended. I do not think this has been done well; in fact, I do not think it could have been done worse. I do not think what is being proposed is going to fix the issues, and in the meantime our staff, House staff and MPs are all working in a very substandard, dangerous working environment, and that is totally and completely unacceptable.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

It is four and a half years since we reached our decision and I think it has been said that it is seven years since we started the whole process, and where are we? Nowhere. We are back where we started.

I should say that I am a member of the Sponsor Body—until we abolish it, that is. I believe it has carried out the task that it was set. The fact that certain individuals do not like the recommendation for a full decant is not the fault of the Sponsor Body. If the House wants to change the remit or scope of the project, that is fine, but let us not blame the Sponsor Body. Let us at least have the good grace to be honest about that, and let us not make up stories such as “Restoral and renewal was responsible for the change of Speaker”, because that simply is not true: it had absolutely nothing to do with R&R.

As a number of Members have pointed out, we should not forget why we chose the structure that we did choose, learning from the Olympics and recognising that this place would change. In the event of a project which, however it is carried out, will continue for many years, Members will change, Governments will change and there will be different views, but what we recognised at the time was that that should not be allowed to undermine this project—which is exactly what has happened. The project has been derailed by a constant stream of new asks, all with one aim: to delay. We have heard suggestions that the House of Lords should move to York, or, more recently, to Wolverhampton, Stoke, Burnley, Edinburgh, Sunderland or Plymouth. I am sure that they are all fine places, but those suggestions were not realistic.

More time was wasted by the suggestion that we should not decant at all. I challenge any Member to come up with any report or any figures that suggest that it is cheaper to stay here than to move out. We need to be honest about that. Then we had the Richmond House debacle. Those who were opposed to a decant seized on Richmond House: they became great defenders of it, which, surprisingly, very few of them had seemed to be previously. Why was that? Because they saw Richmond House as a convenient vehicle for more dither and delay.

So what is the plan now? It is to get rid of the Sponsor Body and bring the function in-house, creating some new department and some hotchpotch of a new governance structure.

In all honesty, we are being asked to rubber-stamp a decision that has already been made. That is the reality of the situation. Parliament decided something, but that does not matter because behind closed doors, the two Commissions have decided to do something completely different. That is the reality of the situation. We can dress it up as much as we like but that is effectively what has happened.

As a number of Members have mentioned, we do not have a great record on doing things internally. I know that the cast iron roofs are always wheeled out as a great example, but the Elizabeth Tower has been mentioned, and Derby Gate is another project that went massively over cost and time. One of my favourites—not one of the biggest projects—was the Cromwell Green security entrance, which I think was condemned after 10 years because of leaks, with water pouring through when it is raining. So we have to be honest: we are not very good at doing this. We do not have the experience or the expertise to manage such projects. I am not blaming the people in-house; it is not their fault, but we sometimes set them tasks that they are unable to do because they do not have that expertise. That is why we drew up the model that we did, but if we go down the road that we are going down, we are going to repeat those mistakes.

One thing I will challenge, which I have heard being put about, is that one of the failings of the Sponsor Body was that it did not consult Members. Actually, there have been loads of consultations and loads of individual consultations. I have had the pleasure, or misfortune, of chairing numerous meetings where one, two or three people—and sometimes no people—would turn up. Maybe that was me; maybe it was just the fact that I was chairing them and nobody wanted to go. But this is the nature of politicians. We moan and groan about people not consulting us, but we do not take up the consultation when it is available. So I think that is a really unfair criticism of the Sponsor Body, because a lot of people worked extremely hard to make sure that Members had the opportunity to express their views.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Just to link that to the hon. Member’s earlier point, does he think there is much point in consulting all the Members when the House of Commons Commissioners are going to make a decision anyway that might be totally different from what Members have said?

[Mark Tami]

That is a very fair point. As I said, the decision has effectively been made.

Let us be honest: it is not about the cost; it is not about the time it will take; and it is certainly not about the people who actually work in here. So what is it about? It is about people who want to stay in here, come what may, with some fantasy vision that we can somehow live in a little bubble in here, that we can stay put, come what may, while everyone works around us, and that we can come up with some costings and then say, “We don’t like that costing so we are going to halve it or quarter it”, and somehow the project can be done for that amount. We are ignoring the reality, and just because the Sponsor Body gave us that reality, we do not like it. The Leader of the House does not like it, so he says we are going to come up with something else and do it on a cheaper basis. It is as if we did not look at these things seven years ago. But this is where we are. As I said, I do not really know why we are having this debate, because the decision was made behind closed doors some time ago. That is a very sad state of affairs, and the House will rue this decision.

Business of the House

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Thursday 31st March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mark Spencer]

Along with Rebecca Whitaker, my hon. Friend is a huge advocate for Keighley and on the challenges of green belt development. It is vital that the Government and local authorities get the balance right between supplying enough homes for the next generation to move into and protecting our green spaces. I am sure it is something that is worthy of further debate, and I encourage my hon. Friend to apply for an Adjournment debate to make sure he has another opportunity to highlight the challenges in his area.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Energy prices are going to skyrocket overnight, so today is meter reading day. Martin Lewis and Which? have both been encouraging people to submit meter readings today. It turns out that the websites of E.ON, EDF, Scottish Power, Shell, British Gas, SSE, Octopus Energy, Sainsbury’s Energy and Bulb are crumbling under the pressure of trying to deal with all these meter reading submissions. Will the Leader of the House join me in encouraging people who cannot submit their meter readings today to ensure they have an accurate record of their meter reading by taking a photo of it or attempting to email it to their provider, so that when the prices go up tomorrow, they are charged the correct rate up until today?

[Mark Spencer]

The hon. Lady should be commended for what is a very good idea. I support her suggestion and I think it is worthy of publicity. I encourage all Members from across the House to highlight it on their social media platforms, and I encourage people in those circumstances to do as she suggests. I think it is a very good idea, and she should be commended for it.

Business of the House

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Thursday 24th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mark Spencer]

I know that my right hon. Friend is a long-standing campaigner on this matter, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Lucy Allan). The Ockenden review is assessing the quality of investigations relating to cases of newborn, infant and maternal harm at Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust. Donna Ockenden is finalising her second report, as he said, and it is due to be published in March 2022—very shortly. We have Health questions next Tuesday, and I am sure the Department will want to update the House on this matter at the earliest opportunity.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Yesterday one of my constituents, Anish Subramaniam, visited Parliament in his role as the youth ambassador for ONE, which, along with ActionAid, was making the case for vaccine equity. Will the Leader of the House make time for Parliament to debate how we can do more to ensure that everyone, everywhere in the world, receives a covid-19 vaccine?

[Mark Spencer]

The hon. Lady raises an important issue. We have a proud record in the United Kingdom of supporting the world in getting vaccinated. I think we have done more than 1 billion doses of vaccine through COVAX, and it is important that we continue to do more. She is right to highlight the fact that in dealing with a global pandemic, we need to make sure that the world—the globe—is vaccinated, and I acknowledge her raising this matter.

Business of the House

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Thursday 23rd September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this matter. The Government’s overarching aim is to ensure fair and equal treatment for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities in a way that facilitates their traditional nomadic way of life. However, we are equally clear that we will not tolerate law-breaking and are determined to ensure that police have the powers they need to support and serve their communities. I will take up my hon. Friend’s concerns with the Home Secretary, because it is important that the law should apply equally to all.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

In a debate yesterday, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy said as an aside that Northern Ireland would no longer be subject to the EU state aid regime and that changes to the Northern Ireland protocol had been sought to ensure that would happen. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a ministerial statement on proposed changes to the Northern Ireland protocol and the process that the Government will undertake to attempt to make them?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady is right to raise the Northern Ireland protocol, which is a matter of discussion between Her Majesty’s Government and the European Union. It is clearly not working properly at the moment, and we cannot allow our country to be divided by the actions of the European Union and their interpretation of the agreement that we came to. Last week, my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Frost made a statement to their lordships that was reported in this House by my right hon. and learned Friend the Paymaster General, so these things are being brought to the attention of the House and will, I am sure, be brought to the House’s attention in future.

Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I just want to say a couple of things. First, I thank the outgoing member, the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), who has done a great job, particularly in answering questions from Members in this place. He has really led on that and we have appreciated it. We disagree on a lot of things, but he has been excellent at representing the Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body. I also welcome my new colleague, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), and thank the board for the work it did and the process it went through to ensure that Paul Lewis, whom I welcome to the board, was chosen.

Let me pick up a couple of points made by the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire). Do you know what? Me and my colleagues are very keen that we get out of this place, and we will be quite happy to just leave you guys to it—that’s fine. I think that there are an awful lot of better ways that taxpayers’ money could be spent, but the hon. Member for Bristol West made some good points about what the House has voted for and what we are now being asked to look at. I still have concerns about the way in which the governance structures are working, because, for example, the House of Commons Commission is making suggestions that seem to be in contrast to those made by this House. That is not a tenable ongoing position, because we will end up in a situation where the sponsor body board is not going to be able to do the things that it is supposed to do because it is being overruled or given three different sets of instructions that drastically vary from each other.

Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Thursday 20th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP) [V]]

As has been noted, I am one of the people on the Sponsor Body board, so I want to make it clear that I have that interest in what is being discussed.

This afternoon is a space for a general debate. We could have been debating the private Member’s Bill on fire and rehire promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands). We could have been debating the issue of dawn raids raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss). We could have been debating the fact that the EU settlement scheme is only open until 30 June, and our constituents only have that long to apply for settled status. Instead, we are taking part in this ridiculously self-indulgent debate about improving the workplace for MPs. The building is dark, smelly, inaccessible and unsafe; however, I do not believe this is the time to discuss restoration and renewal, particularly when we are coming out of a time when people have been excluded from payments. People have not had money because the Government’s furlough scheme has fallen far short, yet we are talking about spending billions of pounds. This is a huge amount of money and it just seems unbelievably self-indulgent.

Let me look at some of the issues that have been and are likely to be brought up in this debate. I have said already that we are talking about a massive amount of money, but that is true in respect not just of what will be spent when work on the restoration and rebuild actually begins but of what is being spent now. The House of Commons has made decisions and decided the direction in which we should go, yet the Sponsor Body is being pointed in all different directions because of the House of Commons administration cannot make up their minds and are asking us to look at things that were not originally in the brief. I genuinely believe that millions of pounds of public money are being wasted on doing things like looking at a significant foothold in the Chamber. I make no apologies for prejudging that: I do not think it would be sensible to keep the Chamber if the rest of the House of Commons was decanted. I cannot imagine why anybody could possibly think that was a good idea, unless they were looking at this from the point of view of themselves wanting to appear in the Chamber.

I understand the shadow Leader of the House’s point about people really loving the building, but for most people the Chamber is a stuffy place that they see on the TV and certainly have not visited in real life, unless they live somewhere in the south of England—most of my constituents have not been anywhere near the House of Commons. Not everybody has a deep feeling of love for the Chamber and I think the general public could do without it for quite a period of time during a decant. The significant foothold is just a daft route to go down. We have talked about democracy functioning properly; democracy can function properly in a room where people can vote with buttons. That is still a democracy. We do not have to troop through the Lobbies in order for this place to be considered a democracy.

I was struck by the shadow Leader of the House’s comments about accessibility. I agree that there is a massive issue with accessibility in the building. If I were in charge and able to wave a magic wand and change things in the building, one thing that I would change is the accessibility, but I want to be clear that it is not just about people who visit the building or members of staff; we are failing in the number of disabled MPs we have and we are never going to be able to encourage more disabled people to stand for Parliament unless we can say, “Yes, you can actually get to the Chamber—or wherever it is you need to be—in time for a vote.” We need to very be clear that that is important. If we are looking at having any kind of significant foothold, or whatever it is called, during a period of decant, we need to make sure that disabled MPs can still access wherever the significant foothold is supposed to be. I do not imagine we could do that for people with significant physical disabilities that mean that they cannot get to places. People will not want to walk through a building site filled with asbestos to get to the Chamber.

Other than the money and accessibility, the other hugely important thing that needs to be taken into account is the need to be environmentally friendly. We cannot just say, “Well, we don’t have very much money for this so we are going to put carbon neutrality down the agenda for refurbishing the House of Commons.” This place talks so often about wanting to be a leader and to model good behaviour; if we cannot ensure that the building is as carbon-neutral as possible, we will fail to meet our climate change obligations and to ensure that future generations are not further harmed by climate change.

There are a few ways of doing things that could require a much smaller area for a decant. For example, post the Scottish independence referendum we will have 59 fewer MPs, so you will not have to worry about us, but we could also take the opportunity to get rid of 850 people in the House of Lords—well, not get rid of them but get rid of the House of Lords and the positions that they hold. That is an outdated institution that is taking up space, and it will cost a significant amount of money coming out of the public purse to pay for the refurbishment of the building that the House of Lords exists in, which is an institution that a significant majority of Scots do not support.

I was concerned when I saw the call list for today’s debate. I have talked already about the fact that this debate is self-indulgent. We have 16 Conservative Members wanting to stand up and talk in this debate, and only six Opposition Members. If we had a debate on one of the things that desperately matter to our constituents, we would have had far more people wanting to contribute.

At the time when I was put on the Sponsor Body, people wanted to contribute because that was when they thought it was a good idea to lay out their very important views on this matter, but we can always just respond to the consultations, rather than taking the opportunity to eat into time in the Chamber.

I think this is an unbelievable amount of public money. I am hugely concerned by the amount being spent, even now, looking at different things, such as the decant options. We should be putting the public purse and the spend up there, along with accessibility and environmental friendliness. That is what we should be considering. We should not be considering whether we get to sit in a certain big green chair during this interim period. That should not be the most important thing, because it is absolutely unnecessary for democracy to function.

Business of the House

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Monday 21st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The answer on Friday is very straightforward. If we have finished on Thursday, the Bill will pass to their lordships in the other place on Friday. The question whether we should sit through the night is always a balanced one about the desire for debate and the enthusiasm that people have for this. The hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) mentioned the pressure on Back Benchers, who needed to be treated in a reasonable way. Is it reasonable to ask right hon. and hon. Members to sit through the night for three nights? Is it a reasonable thing to ask of the staff of the House? I—like you, Mr Speaker—quite like the sound of my own voice, and therefore I am always happy for this Chamber to be sitting, because it gives us the opportunity to do what we both so enjoy, but it may be unreasonable on others, so it is purely a question of balance.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Can the Leader of the House let us know if an economic impact assessment of the deal has been carried out yet? If it has, will it be published tomorrow, in time for us to look at it before the Second Reading debate?

Business of the House

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Does the programme motion tomorrow mean that the votes will be at the moment of interruption, or will they be at some other time?

[Andrea Leadsom]

The programme motion sets out that the vote will be at the moment of interruption, but it is subject to the agreement of the House.