Privilege: Conduct of Right Hon. Boris Johnson

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Monday 19th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. Of course, this is a House matter. It is therefore not whipped. Like the Leader of the House of Commons, the right hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), I will be voting to approve and endorse the report and its recommendations, and I urge others to do the same.

By failing to admit that such events were against the rules and that he should have admitted that as early as possible, Mr Johnson is dishonouring our constituents’ sacrifice—sacrifices they made in the correct belief that they were doing so to protect others; losses that can never be recovered. Birthdays happen every year—it is Johnson’s today. Weddings can be postponed. Plenty were and I know it was hard, but it was possible. But funerals cannot. So I ask each and every MP to look into their hearts and before they risk dishonouring their constituents’ sacrifice, to ask themselves this: if a relative of a victim of covid from their constituency were in the room right now, what would they say? Colleagues across the House are decent people who want to do the right thing and I urge them not to follow Johnson’s example.

Mr Johnson claims the public do not care and that we should all simply move on. Believe me, I did not want to spend my weekend reading 30,000 words on the former Prime Minister. But to tackle soaring mortgage rates, rising crime, NHS waiting lists or any issue that the people we represent rightly want to see addressed, MPs and the public must be able to trust what Ministers say in the House of Commons. Telling the truth is the foundation of a functioning Parliament, the basis on which we hold Ministers to account. It is how we scrutinise new laws and it is how we do our jobs properly. Our democracy depends on it.

It is worth reminding Members today, before they vote, that the public do care about Ministers lying to Parliament. I cannot quite believe that some need reminding of that, but clearly they do. The Constitution Unit at University College London recently found that public anger over dishonesty in politics runs deep. People watching this debate today support the work of the Privileges Committee and rightly so. We all owe the Committee a debt of gratitude. Our constituents want us to step up and enforce the rules when MPs, including Ministers, break them. Being honest came top on a list of characteristics the public told UCL were most desirable for politicians to have. The health of democracy ranked high on issues that matter. They want a Prime Minister who acts honourably, who tells the truth.

The public can take some reassurance from this sorry saga, in that when a Prime Minister fails to act honourably and fails to tell the truth, we have a system here in Parliament to hold them to account. Far from the unfounded claims of a “kangaroo court” that I have heard from some, the Committee members detailed their process and took every possible step to ensure fairness. They, their Clerks and other staff deserve our thanks.

As the Leader of the House explained so admirably, the House voted unanimously to establish the inquiry. The Committee took legal advice from the right hon. Sir Ernest Ryder, former Senior President of Tribunals and Lord Justice of Appeal, from Speaker’s Counsel and from the Clerks of the House, consulting on how to

“apply the general principles of fairness, the rules of the House, and…procedural precedents”.

In the interests of transparency, the Committee published a report last summer setting out its intended processes. It made “further public comments” on its workings “when appropriate.” It gave Johnson further time to respond to the evidence and make his own submissions—and yet, since the start of the inquiry, there has been a sustained, seemingly co-ordinated attempt to undermine its credibility, and the credibility of its individual members. At no point, as far as I can see, did Johnson denounce this campaign. When asked, he said that he had “respect” for the Committee, and that

“he deprecated terms such as ‘witch hunt’ and ‘kangaroo court’”,

but, as we have now found out, he kept those terms in his back pocket all along to use as soon as things did not go his way.

Let us look at what the Committee found. It analysed six events that took place in Downing Street between 2020 and 2021, which it refers to as “gatherings”. Using the evidence available, it was able to establish: what the covid rules and guidance were at the time of each occasion; Mr Johnson’s knowledge of those rules and guidance; his attendance at or knowledge of events which breached rules or guidance; what he had been told by others, and what assurances he had been given about compliance; and, finally, what he had told the House.

That last point is obviously a matter of parliamentary record. We know from Hansard that Mr Johnson spoke in the House of Commons about covid compliance in No. 10 many times, and the Committee established that it was, in fact, more than 30 times. The examples that stand out include those that occurred during Prime Minister’s Question Time, starting with a question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) on 1 December 2021. I commend her, and many other colleagues who did their jobs as scrutinisers. Speaking then and to the Committee, Johnson asserted that the rules and guidance were followed “completely”, “at all times”, and while he was present at gatherings.

Having established all that, the Committee then measured what Johnson had said against the actual facts of what had happened and what he had either known or should reasonably have known, at the time and subsequently, and found that it was not correct. The term that he had used, “imperfect social distancing”, could not be found in the guidance. He had put forward an

“unsustainable interpretation of the Guidance”

which was

“both disingenuous and a retrospective contrivance to mislead the House”.

In other words, Boris Johnson lied. This was a new low in his disregard for standards in public life.

I suggest that hon. Members across the House should ask themselves simply, “Does this pass the common sense test?” After he has lied his way through his career, and given the meticulous way in which the Committee has approached this whole inquiry and its carefully considered report, do they still trust Johnson? They should think back to 2020. In the first wave of covid, we had no vaccine, no mass testing, and no cure. People were afraid. People were dying. Would any one of us have considered that an event with an invitation list of 200, with wine, to boost staff morale or to say thank you for hard work, was essential for work purposes? Yet, even now, the former Prime Minister continues to say that it was.

Every single one of us will have constituency examples of heartbreaking cases in which people did not meet in person when they desperately wanted to do so. Doctors, nurses, care workers, teachers and bus drivers would not have dreamt of asking the then Prime Minister if they could get together for a “bring your own bottle party” with a “plus one”. They would never have brought their interior designer either. They knew the true meaning of sacrifice. They did not need to ask; they listened to him, night after night, telling us and reminding us what the guidance and the rules were. He was, as the Committee said, the “most prominent public promoter” of those rules. So it is simply not credible for Johnson to claim repeatedly that they were complied with, when the evidence is so damningly clear that they were not and that he must have known, because he was the one announcing them. This is not just the reasonable person test; it is the “Who on earth do you think you are kidding?” test. And he fails both.

The final area I want to cover is the current Prime Minister’s reaction to the report and where it leaves standards in Parliament and public life more generally. It is painfully clear that the Prime Minister is not strong enough to turn the page on his predecessor. When stories or scandals like this one cut through with the public, it offers the Prime Minister the chance to press the reset button, show leadership, get to grips with an issue and tackle it head on, but this Prime Minister is simply too weak to do so. Despite promising integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level, he has shown that he is too weak to stand up to Boris Johnson and his sycophants, which is profoundly dangerous, because if we cannot have a Prime Minister that stands up for standards, what have we got?

All we have heard so far are mealy-mouthed statements. It was on the Prime Minister to come to the House and set an example to his MPs. Instead, I hear that he has proactively said that he does not want to influence anyone on this. How is that integrity at every level? If the Prime Minister cannot even show leadership when it comes to holding liars to account, how can he expect the people of this country to trust him on anything? Is he at least planning to say something of note after the vote, or is his judgment so poor that he is sitting this one out completely? He is the Prime Minister; we should know where he stands.

I ask the Leader of the House: has the Prime Minister at least read the report? Does he personally endorse the Committee’s conclusions? Does he back the sanctions in full? The Leader of the Opposition has done just that; why cannot the Prime Minister?

As I said, the Government have form. I was shadow Leader of the House two years ago when Boris Johnson and the then Leader of the House tried to rip up the rules to save their friend, Owen Paterson. Hundreds of Tory MPs voted with them and, I am afraid to say, that included the current Leader of the House. The current Prime Minister was missing then, too. This has all the hallmarks of Paterson 2.0. This time, MPs have been actively encouraged to dodge the vote. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will prove me wrong, because a real leader would not abdicate responsibility. A real leader would encourage Members to rise to the moment. I welcome the motion in the name of the Leader of the House, but I ask: who on the Government side actually supports it? The Government Front-Bench team, from the media over the weekend, otherwise seem to be in chaos. Where are they?

Just yesterday, the Levelling Up Secretary said that he disagrees with the Committee’s conclusions. Does the Leader of the House know how many of her other Cabinet colleagues are not supporting her motion? Perhaps the easiest way to work it out is to think about which Cabinet Minister fancies their chances when it comes to the next Tory leadership election. That seems to be what we have been reduced to: Cabinet Ministers jostling for position with the membership. This is no way to run a country.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech. Does she agree that the Prime Minister not being here and not saying that he will also vote for the motion does not show him trying to avoid influencing the outcome? It shows a Prime Minister who knows exactly what outcome he is trying to influence. His very absence seeks to influence the way Members vote tonight.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I must agree; it seems to me that this is a Prime Minister whose judgment is so poor that he cannot even find it in himself to give an opinion on the Committee’s conclusions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

That is an extremely interesting point, for which, as a non-lawyer, I thank the hon. Lady.

If it is true that attempts were made to bully and, yes, blackmail Privileges Committee members so that they came to conclusions that were not based on the evidence but prioritised Boris Johnson’s personal interests, that is shocking. The integrity of Parliament must come above all else. It takes courage to stand up against such political pressures, but showing integrity and leaving party tribalism at the door is absolutely vital if we are to uphold democracy and protect this place from a further erosion of trust.

[Seema Malhotra]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point about integrity and the protection of this House. Young people have contacted me about this debate, which they are following. Does she agree that for a former Prime Minister to lie to the House and to the Privileges Committee, to seek to undermine the Committee and then to threaten parliamentarians who support the Committee’s findings is behaviour on which we must take a stand, in the interests of our constituents and the next generations? In voting for this motion today, it is important that we take this decisive stand on integrity, which will have an impact on confidence in this House for generations to come.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I agree, and I am pleased that the Privileges Committee will look at the conduct of some Members of both Houses in attempting to intimidate Committee members.

Today’s debate has to be considered as part of a bigger problem facing us. Over the past six years, we have seen consistent attacks on the fragile pillars that act as vital checks on Executive power. We have seen judges and judicial review denigrated; senior civil servants sacked for speaking truth to power; cronies appointed to key public positions; pals rewarded with honours and contracts; attempts to undermine the independence of the BBC; and our Parliament systematically bypassed. Boris Johnson allowed that creeping culture of corruption and unchecked executive power to infect our democracy.

Let us not beat about the bush: Boris Johnson did recklessly and deliberately mislead this House. His behaviour helped to support a culture that threatens our democracy. Today, I hope we are beginning to undo the damage that has been done. We are reaffirming the importance of Ministers and Prime Ministers being properly, honestly and truthfully accountable to Parliament and, through us, to the public.

Mr Johnson was not just called an “honourable” Member of this House; he led a major political party. He was our Prime Minister, yet he misled us time and time and time again, and he did so with impunity. Conservative Members knew this man before he became their leader. They knew he had been sacked as a journalist for lying. They knew he had been sacked from the Opposition Front Bench for lying. They knew he routinely bent the rules and misspent public money at City Hall. They knew he was a liar, yet they still made the terrible mistake of electing him as their leader.

So today, I hope that all Members of this House, and particularly Members on the Government Benches, do not make another terrible mistake by choosing either not to turn up or not to vote. This should not be about Conservatives versus Labour. Every parliamentarian needs to look at the evidence and ask themselves if they can honestly ignore the heaps of information that shows that Boris Johnson lied to us all, and through us, to the people in the country. I strongly urge every single Member of Parliament to walk through the Lobby and register their vote—a vote for the resolution, a vote that demonstrates our support for truth, justice and democracy.

Business of the House

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Thursday 17th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to congratulate Parracombe Community Trust on its terrific job creating that community facility. She will know that we recognise the importance of social enterprise. We have made finance available to support it through dormant asset funding, and there is also assistance from the £150 million community ownership fund. I encourage her to apply for a debate on the matter.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

Can we have an urgent debate on houses in multiple occupation and their regulation? Unscrupulous companies are targeting communities, buying up home after home on the same street and converting those homes to tiny units not fit for vulnerable adults to live in. Local authorities then have very limited powers or influence over them, and too often we see a consequent rise in antisocial behaviour and other crimes. The legislation is truly a mess. Overnight, people who have felt safe on their streets and lived there in peace for many years suddenly feel unsafe in their own homes. This is a problem we can solve, and Parliament needs to debate it and act on it.

Points of Order

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Thursday 25th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the right hon. Lady for notice of her point of order. As she well knows, and as Mr Speaker has said many times, it is a matter for the Government whether they make a written or oral ministerial statement; the occupant of the Chair has no say in that matter.

The right hon. Lady asks the question always asked during points of order, but I appreciate that it is a way for her to bring to the attention of the House and those on the Treasury Bench her concerns about how this matter can be brought before the House. There are, of course, many ways in which the right hon. Lady can do that: she can seek an Adjournment debate; ask for an urgent question; go to the Backbench Business Committee; urge a Select Committee to have an inquiry; and write to Ministers. I think she knows about all those. I am quite sure that, given her experience and determination—for which she is renowned in this particular matter—she will find one of those ways of bringing this matter to the Floor of the House.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank you and Mr Speaker for allowing me to make this point of order.

On 8 March, in Department for Work and Pensions questions, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies), told me that in Feltham and Heston there were 77 kickstart vacancies and 11 starts. She also shared kickstart data for Tower Hamlets with my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali). On 17 March, I tabled a written question asking for kickstart placements and vacancies by constituency; I was surprised to be told that that data is not currently available by constituency.

Three other colleagues—my hon. Friends the Members for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith), for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) and for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard)—have been similarly rebuffed when asking about their own constituencies. MPs have also been told that the Department is unable to publish data below regional level.

Madam Deputy Speaker, if the Minister told me figures for my constituency in this House, the data does exist and could be published. Given that young people’s jobs have been worst hit, transparency matters so that Parliament knows where opportunities are reaching and where they are not. Could you advise me on how Members can seek to get this important data published by the DWP?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving me notice of her point of order. As I said to her right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) a few moments ago, it is not for the Chair to comment on the accuracy or completeness of ministerial answers; that is a matter entirely for Ministers. But it is fairly obvious that if the Department holds the information that she has requested, it should provide that information to her.

The hon. Lady has used her point of order to draw her concerns to the attention of the House and Ministers. Of course, she will also be aware that the Procedure Committee monitors departmental performance. I suggest that she considers drawing the matter to the attention of the Procedure Committee if the Department’s response remains unsatisfactory.

Tributes to the Speaker

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Thursday 31st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I take this opportunity, Mr Speaker, to put on record my thanks to you and my appreciation for all your guidance and support since the day I was elected? You are an extraordinary parliamentarian, human being and friend to so many—and I extend that to your family, who also deserve our thanks. As I know, your welcome to new MPs goes a long way towards settling them in the House at a very daunting time for them, when everything is so confusing. It went a long way towards giving me the confidence to stand up in the House and do my duty on behalf of my constituents, and I thank you for that.

May I also say thank you on behalf of my family? My brother Sundeep in Australia has just texted me to say that he, too, wants to extend his best wishes and his thanks to you, particularly for your support when we were going through extremely difficult times, notably the illness and death of my father. You were accommodating when I had to leave before a debate ended; you came to our last family tea downstairs; and your letter to my father wishing him good health was a huge boost to his spirits in his final months.

Your commitment to equality and wellbeing has been second to none in the House. I know how much you have done. It has indeed been an honour to serve on your Speaker’s Committee on equality, diversity and inclusion since very soon after I was elected, and I am grateful for the opportunity to do so. You have done incredible work, often behind the scenes, to secure a proxy vote for colleagues who are benefiting from that now. You have been committed to increasing diversity in senior and significant positions in the House, and the visibility of that diversity has gone a long way towards making the House seem feel more relevant and inclusive, not just to us here, but to those outside.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Seema Malhotra]

These are responses to a statement.

Mr Speaker, your work on the Education Centre has been extraordinary. You are an agent of change, and you set a standard for how to push the boundaries to achieve the reform and revitalisation that are so desperately needed, no matter what the organisation. I also thank you on behalf of my constituents, because I know that hundreds, if not thousands, have been through the Education Centre. Young people, many of primary school age, have been able to experience the House and build a connection with a place that is their House and is fighting for their future, too. I have no doubt that future parliamentarians, and indeed future Speakers, will embark on their roles in public life as a result of their experiences of our fantastic Education Centre and all who work in it.

You have opened up Speaker’s House, where we have held events such as National Sikh Awareness and History Month. Indeed, you hosted an event marking the first anniversary of the launch of a project in Hounslow, Hounslow’s Promise, which seeks to advance the educational attainment, social mobility and employability of our young people.

I also pay tribute to you for your defence of this House and our democracy. This is a House that is a beacon of democracy across the world. Its integrity and its reputation as a national institution go beyond us as individuals and must never be taken for granted. It is indeed for each of us to protect and safeguard the House, because it is our democracy that keeps our nation safe.

You have led us through unbearable times—events that have stunned the nation, such as the terror attack on Parliament and the murder of our dear friend Jo Cox. You have also seen us through the unconventional but extremely important and peaceful unveiling, on a Saturday, of her coat of arms here behind us, by her husband and her children. I was honoured to be here that day, along with local councillors Adriana Gheorghe, Candice Atterton and Samia Chaudhary, and others who came to support the family at that time and to remember Jo.

In the Chamber, Mr Speaker, you have been tough and fair when that has been needed for either Front or Back Benchers, but you have also been generous when that has been needed. You have, for instance, been generous in respect of urgent constituency matters—including events such as the life, and then the death, of young Charlie Gard from my constituency—and, indeed, in respect of policy matters such as those relating to young offenders in Feltham young offenders institution. You have allowed us to raise those issues at moments of great importance, and I am grateful to you, as are my constituents, for the times when that has made the difference.

Mr Speaker, you have touched the lives of hundreds of thousands who have walked through the doors of this place. You are loved by many across the House, political friend and foe alike, and you will be deeply missed. I know, however, that this will not be the end of a sterling career and that whatever you do next will be a great contribution to our democracy and to our country. I am excited, as well as intrigued, about what it might be.

Sittings of the House (29 March)

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Thursday 28th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

Absolutely, and I raised the question this morning with the Speaker about what exactly we are doing about section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. The hon. Gentleman is right. We have not seen the withdrawal and implementation Bill. We are expected to make critical decisions about the future of this country and about how we should progress Brexit without knowing what the Bill is. The Government are offering the ultimate blind Brexit. We are expected to give them a blank cheque to negotiate the political agreement as they see fit. This is the last throw of the dice for them. This is the only place they have left. The meaningful vote is dead, but they have tried to resurrect it by splitting it into two parts.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Gentleman is making an important point about a blind Brexit. Does he agree that the way in which the motion has been tabled goes against the spirit of this House, where we have been trying to expand and understand where there is consensus, and that it instead contracts the debate by trying to separate the debate about the future? That is at the very core of the debate, and this is why we do not want to leave without knowing where we are going to. It is like moving house and leaving your home without knowing where you are going to be living.

[Pete Wishart]

I have heard that analogy before, and the hon. Lady is absolutely right.

We can compare what happened yesterday when this House was able to consider all sorts of measures and ways forward in order to see whether there was any sort of consensus across the House on how we should determine and progress these ideas. Tomorrow, on the other hand, is all about trying to satisfy Conservative Back Benchers, with no attempt to reach out to the rest of the House. That is why I believe that tomorrow’s motion will ultimately fail. This is the last chance for the Government to bring it back, and the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) can be certain that the Scottish National party will be here to take part in tomorrow’s debate even though we have hundreds of miles to travel. We will ensure that the motion fails tomorrow and that the interests of our country are maintained and progressed, and we will look forward to that. As an exercise, this is totally and utterly consistent with the chaotic cluelessness that lies at the heart of this Tory Brexit. This Tory Government have divided that nation and taken us to the brink. The SNP will be here tomorrow, and we will be voting the motion down.

Business of the House

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Wednesday 27th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Valerie Vaz]

I cannot add anything to my hon. Friend’s excellent intervention.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I will support the motion today. I thank the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), and I am proud to have worked with them on how to try and move forward. My concern when I first drafted one of the original meaningful vote amendments in December 2017 was that, should the House not agree to a deal, we would need some sort of process or roadmap by which we would then have some chance of moving forward in an orderly fashion. Indeed, the position we are in today is down to a profound lack of leadership from the Prime Minister. She did not involve the House early enough or build a consensus on how to move forward. Instead of the disappointment expressed by the Leader of the House, I am surprised that we did not hear some profound regret that the Prime Minister and the Government had not engaged the House considerably earlier on the negotiating objectives. Instead, they have continued down a track that was clearly going to lead to the same place: defeat every single time.

[Valerie Vaz]

I agree with everything my hon. Friend says.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

The tables being turned does not really concern Scottish National party Members, as it is unlikely that we will ever have the opportunity to have this done to us. The hon. Gentleman is right in one respect: this Parliament has changed the way we have done our business. The last change to the Standing Orders—I am sure I am right on this, but the hon. Member for North East Somerset will correct me if I am wrong—was when we introduced English votes for English laws. That is the last time the Standing Orders of this House were changed, much to the detriment of Scottish Members, who all of a sudden found themselves being a different class of Member of this House from other Members across the House. So the Standing Orders are within the gift of Parliament and if it decides to change them, that will be a matter for us. We will determine that in a motion presented to this House.

[Seema Malhotra]

The discussion about precedent is one we may look back on in due course and ask whether we could have done anything differently. Is it not true that on this issue, which is of such national importance, and where the divisions and the unities go across party boundaries, we are dealing with an unprecedented way in which the country, which has also been kept out of this debate over the past two or three years, is now calling out for Parliament to find a way forward? Is it not also true that the Government ceded control on Monday when they still had an opportunity to bring forward a pathway and process by which the voice of this House could be heard?

Business of the House

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I certainly share the hon. Gentleman’s concern at the postcode lottery around delivery charges to different locations. He will appreciate that there are obviously different costs incurred in delivering to more remote areas, but the principle of a single charge where that has been agreed should be upheld. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to perhaps seek an Adjournment debate so that he can discuss this properly directly with Ministers, who could then see what more can be done.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

Today is indeed World Book Day, and I am sure we all want to thank teachers, parents, mentors and schools in our constituencies for their efforts in delivering quality literacy education to young and old alike. Shockingly, the UK ranks 17th for literacy out of 34 OECD countries, and one in five children in the UK cannot read well by the age of 11. Today sees the release of the incredibly moving documentary “H is for Harry”, described by The Sunday Times as

“casting a spotlight on one of the biggest education scandals in Britain”,

It was filmed at Reach Academy in my constituency and tells the story of 11-year-old Harry’s struggle to learn to read, and indeed that of his father and grandfather. Following the release of that documentary, may we have a debate about intergenerational illiteracy, which is more widespread than we realise, its impact on social isolation, life chances and wellbeing, and the increasingly urgent need for much more early intervention?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am really sympathetic to the hon. Lady. Through the work that I have been doing for the Prime Minister in an inter-ministerial group looking at early years, I have found that one of the challenges that parents often face is their child having delayed speech. That has an impact on the child’s ability to learn, and therefore to learn to read. The hon. Lady is absolutely right to say that we need to look at earlier interventions. On the other hand, I am sure she will join me in celebrating the fact that 1.9 million more children are being taught in good or outstanding schools than was the case in 2010, that 86% of all schools are rated as good or outstanding, up from 68% in 2010, and that the gap between disadvantaged pupils and others is narrowing. All these outcomes represent a good direction of travel, but she is absolutely right to raise the importance of literacy at an early age.

Speaker’s Statement

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Wednesday 19th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

No, and I am not even complaining. I am not criticising the hon. Gentleman, and I am grateful for his good humour. The hon. Gentleman wanted to make his own point and he has made it. I stand by what I previously said. He has made an important point, but it is not a contradiction of what I have said about the impossibility of certainty, nor is it inconsistent with the spontaneous interpretation which I myself offered. But I repeat: it was my interpretation—I am not a lipreader, I am not a lipspeaker, and it is not for me to cast judgment in this matter. Fair-minded people, who are interested in the merits of the issue—and I am sure that includes the hon. Gentleman—will know that what I say is true.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I also agree that we have a responsibility, as Members of this House, to uphold the very highest standards in language about each other, but also about each other’s integrity, and I do hope that we will be able to see a renewed commitment to that next year. Mr Speaker, I have been proud to sit on your Committee for enhancing equality and diversity in this House since very soon after I was elected, and to put on the record my thanks to you for your commitment to equality and diversity in this House in so many different matters.

My point of order is on a slightly different topic, however. According to press reports of a leaked Department for Work and Pensions document, “EU Exit Planning—Economic Downturn”, the Government, as part of their long-term contingency planning in the event of no deal, suggested they would create a strategy with other Departments for handling the negative impacts, such as homelessness, poverty and suicide. If that is true, these are extremely serious allegations or matters, and should be brought explicitly to this House, so that we may have access to Government analysis as to who they expect to fall into poverty, where homelessness could rise, and who they see as being at risk of suicide.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her initial remarks and for her subsequent point of order, to which my response is that there may be an opportunity for those concerns to be aired during the course of the afternoon.

Business of the House

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Thursday 6th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

We should all celebrate the excellent economic news that we have had recently, in particular the rise in employment and reduction in unemployment, and the growth in our economy and certainly in our services sector. My hon. Friend will be aware that there will be many opportunities to discuss our economy during the Budget debate later this year, but he might like to seek an Adjournment or Westminster Hall debate to discuss service sector productivity.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

On Tuesday, in evidence to our Exiting the European Union Committee, the deputy permanent secretary confirmed that there were still 800-plus pieces of legislation to come through Parliament by February. That equates to a ballpark figure of about 50 a week, and more statutory instruments in four months than in each of the past two years. Will the Leader of the House make a statement on how the Government plan to schedule those statutory instruments, which we are told will be necessary prior to our leaving the European Union regardless of the outcome of the negotiations, and whether that will require any extended hours of the House or the cancellation of other business, if there are no plans to change the recesses?

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Lady raises a really important point, and I would like to spend a moment explaining exactly where we are on this. We expect there to be between 800 and 1,000 Brexit statutory instruments, but the figure will probably be at the lower end of that estimate—somewhere in the region of just over 800. About half of those will be required either for no deal or for all eventualities. The other half are subject to negotiation. That number is perfectly manageable and in line with other parliamentary Sessions. It is not an extraordinary number of SIs at all, and we are confident that it can be managed within the normal parliamentary timings and the normal management of the business of the House, so I do not think that hon. Members should be concerned that the amount of secondary legislation will require any changes to recesses or to the normal sitting hours. The hon. Lady will also be aware that the business managers will make every effort to manage the business such that the flow is perfectly regular and normal, so that we do not end up with big peaks.

Business of the House

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Thursday 19th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. Although, quite clearly, it is not a point of order for the Chair in connection with proceedings in the Chamber, it is a very important point affecting a great many colleagues in the House. The Leader of the House will have heard the point, and I will make sure that the matter is drawn to the attention of Mr Speaker. Let us hope that by these various means the matter also comes to the attention of those who organise our sometimes reliable and sometimes not reliable IT service.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I request your advice on whether there might be a way, prior to the recess, to bring clarity to this topic so that we know what we might need to plan for over the summer?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I appreciate the hon. Lady’s question. Now that the matter has been raised, many people will want clarity as soon as possible. I will try to ensure that an answer is brought by tomorrow, and I am sure that Mr Speaker will also require that, in so far as he is able to do so.