Electoral Commission: Appointments

Thangam Debbonaire Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2022 General Committees

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mark Spencer)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the motion, That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will re-appoint Lord Gilbert of Panteg as an Electoral Commissioner with effect from 1 November 2022 for the period ending 31 October 2026; appoint Roseanna Cunningham as an Electoral Commissioner with effect from 1 October 2022 for the period ending 30 September 2026; and appoint Chris Ruane as an Electoral Commissioner with effect from 1 November 2022 for the period ending 31 October 2026.

Mr Twigg, you will see that, on page 12 of the Order Paper, the Fourth Delegated Legislation Committee is to

“consider the motion in the name of Sir Mark Spencer”.

I am delighted to have had that premonition. I thought I would draw it to the Committee’s attention.

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

I was shocked.

[Mark Spencer]

Not as shocked as I was, to be honest.

The Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission has produced its second report of 2022 in respect of these appointments, which I am sure hon. Members read with great interest. Electoral commissioners are appointed under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, as amended by the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009. Under the 2000 Act, the Speaker’s Committee has a responsibility to oversee the selection of candidates for appointment to the Electoral Commission. Any reappointments can be made only on the Committee’s recommendation.

Lord Gilbert, Roseanna Cunningham and Chris Ruane will be three of four nominated commissioners, who are persons put forward by the registered leader of a political party. The term of office for the current nominated commissioner for the Conservative party, Lord Gilbert, ends on 31 October. Following a positive appraisal of Lord Gilbert’s performance as a commissioner from the chair of the Electoral Commission, the Speaker’s Committee agreed in November 2021 to progress with his reappointment, subject to the statutory consultation with party leaders.

I will turn to the Labour and SNP nominations. The term of office for the current nominated commissioner for the Labour party, Joan Walley—a great lady—expires on 31 October. The term of office of the current nominated commissioner for the Scottish National party, Alasdair Morgan, expires on 30 September. The Speaker appointed a panel to consider the Labour and SNP nominees and make recommendations to the Speaker’s Committee on their appointability. I am grateful to the panel for its work and unanimous recommendations.

Roseanna Cunningham was a Member of the Scottish Parliament from 1999 until her retirement in 2021, and she was elected as an SNP Member of Parliament between 1995 and 2001. Overall, the panel considered that Ms Cunningham was eminently appointable and that she would bring strong political experience and effective challenge to the commission board.

Chris Ruane was the Labour Member of Parliament for the Vale of Clwyd from 1997 to 2015, and from 2017 to 2019. Before Mr Ruane’s political career, he was a deputy headteacher. The panel considered Mr Ruane a strong candidate who would bring passion, understanding and constructive challenge to the role. The Speaker’s Committee is confident that Ms Cunningham and Mr Ruane have the experience and personal qualities to be effective members of the commission.

Statute requires that the proposed appointments or reappointments to the Electoral Commission be subject to consultation with the registered leader of each party to which two or more Members of the House of Commons belong. The statutory consultation provides an opportunity for the party leaders to comment, but they are not required to do so. Mr Speaker accordingly wrote to the leaders of the qualifying parties on 1 November 2021 and on 28 April 2022. No objections or concerns were received in response to the Speaker’s consultation.

As is required under the Act, Mr Speaker has given his agreement for this motion. I hope that the appointments will have the Committee’s support, and ultimately the House’s support. I wish the appointees well in their important roles.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

It is a pleasure to serve under your authority in the Chair, Mr Twigg, and please do advise me if I stray beyond the bounds of my role. I know that the commissioners have been properly scrutinised and recruited. That is set out well in the document, which I have eagerly read. However, I note that the background to their appointment is the Government’s treatment towards commissioners as a whole, partly in the passage of the Elections Bill—now the Elections Act 2022. Also, in the run-up over the past few years, there have been numerous calls by people on the Government side to abolish the Electoral Commission. In fact, that unfortunately includes the Leader of the House’s new deputy, the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), who is on the record—from 2018, I think—as having called for the Electoral Commission to be abolished. The Electoral Commission and all commissioners, with the exception of the chair, who recused himself—

[The Chair]

Order. I interrupt to advise the hon. Member that she is straying from the matter. The debate is about the appointments, not the Electoral Commission itself.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

It is about the appointments. How can the Leader of the House assure the new commissioners being appointed that they will have the proper independence that they should be allowed, given the background of the Elections Act, given that Government Members, including Ministers now, undermine them, and given that the commission itself, which will include the new members being appointed as a result of today’s motion, expressed serious concern about the strategy in a policy statement laid out in statute under part 3 of the Elections Act?

Given that the existing commissioners, including one of the members now being reappointed today under this motion, expressed their concerns in their policy document, I would like the Leader of the House to answer various questions. How can he assure the new commissioners, who are being appointed today by the motion he is laying, that the Government will not interfere with their independence? Can he guarantee that there will be no further undermining of the Electoral Commission as a whole? In order for new commissioners to take up their role with enthusiasm, they at least need to know that they are part of a body that the Government does not intend to abolish. How will the Secretary of State’s considerable anti-democratic powers in part 3 of the Act affect the new and existing commissioners, in particular the role of the chair, who is being reappointed under the terms of this motion?

Will the Leader of the House undertake to discuss with his colleagues, including his new deputy, the importance of the independence of the new commissioners who are being appointed by this motion? Can he further guarantee that there will be no further attempts to undermine the good work of these new commissioners, alongside their existing colleagues? I would be grateful if he answered those questions.

[Mark Spencer]

I am delighted to reassure the hon. Lady that the Electoral Commission is an independent regulatory body. It is actually not accountable to the Government; it is independent of Government and only accountable to Parliament through the Speaker’s Committee. Those commissioners are completely right to act independently and are encouraged to do so. The Electoral Commission is not accountable to the Government; it is accountable to Parliament.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

The Act does state:

“The Secretary of State may designate a statement for the purposes of this section”,

and that will affect the new commissioners that he is appointing, particularly the new chair.

[The Chair]

Order. Again, I will have to rule on that. We are talking about the specific appointments, not the general policy.

Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster

Thangam Debbonaire Excerpts

Tuesday 12th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

I think no one is likely to disagree with anything I have said, which is similar to much of what the Leader of the House said, so Members could be forgiven for wondering why we are here—why we are where we are in the restoration and renewal of the Palace. In 2018, the Commons and the Lords agreed that work was pressing and rightly concluded that it should be undertaken by a statutory sponsor body and delivery authority. Subsequently, as my amendment highlights—it pains me to have to say this, but I do have to and I notified the right hon. Gentleman that I would—the former Leader of the House of Commons, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), worked to undermine progress and spent time wrangling with experts instead of working with them to secure the future of the building. We must follow the evidence and the advice of experts. I did think that the Government could have learnt by now that ignoring experts is just not advisable. I am afraid to say that in my view there is a political dimension. The Leader of the House asked me not to make it a party political matter. I am afraid to say that there is a huge aspect that is. It is on certain members of the Government that we are here. The right hon. Member for North East Somerset just kept changing the goal posts. I have seen that happen. That is typical of the whole Government.

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

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

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

[Thangam Debbonaire]

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

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

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

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

[Thangam Debbonaire]

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

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

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

[Dame Meg Hillier]

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

[Thangam Debbonaire]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Business of the House

Thangam Debbonaire Excerpts

Thursday 7th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the forthcoming business?

[Mr Speaker]

Good luck, Leader!

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mark Spencer)]

It will be a pleasure. The business for the week beginning on 11 July will include the following:

Monday 11 July—Consideration of a Business of the House motion, followed by all stages of the Energy (Oil and Gas) Profits Levy Bill, followed by debate on motions relating to the Liability of Trade Unions in Proceedings in Tort (Increase of Limits on Damages) Order 2022 and the draft Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses (Amendment) Regulations 2022.

Tuesday 12 July—Remaining stages of the Online Safety Bill (day 1), followed by a debate on a motion on restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster.

Wednesday 13 July—Consideration in Committee of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill (Day 1).

Thursday 14 July—A debate on a motion on Srebrenica, followed by a general debate on protecting and restoring nature at COP15 and beyond. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 15 July—Private Members’ Bills.

The provisional business for the week commencing 18 July includes the following:

Monday 18 July—Consideration in Committee of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill (Day 2).

Tuesday 19 July—Conclusion of consideration in Committee of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill (Day 3).

Wednesday 20 July—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Online Safety Bill.

Thursday 21 July—Business to be determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

The House will rise for the summer recess at the conclusion of business on Thursday 21 July and return on Monday 5 September.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I thank the Leader of the House for the forthcoming business, although his Government are clearly not in any position to deliver it. The Prime Minister is resigning—we are hearing on Twitter that Cabinet appointments may be happening—and we have had Bill Committees cancelled this morning. There is no doubt, as we have been saying for months, that this Government are simply unable to govern. Inflation has reached its highest for 40 years; 59 members of the Government—when I last printed out a copy of this speech—have resigned; economic growth is grinding to a halt; the hours-in-post Chancellor spent his first day on the job asking his boss to quit rather than planning for how we will deal with the cost of living crisis; and, as backlog Britain bulges, the Attorney General has been on television announcing her leadership bid. This is far beyond a mere distraction; this is a Tory Government paralysed by sleaze and scandal. In a shameful act of desperation, the Prime Minister is dragging the country down with him as he goes, and I am afraid his party has propped him up to do it.

Even if the Prime Minister is now Prime Minister in name only—frankly, that situation needs to change—there appears to be no one left to drive the work of the Government forward in Whitehall. The Leader of the House is constantly telling me that his Government are getting on with the job. They are clearly not. We were told that appointments would be made last night, but we are still waiting for ministerial posts in the Treasury, Education—there is no one there—Justice, Environment, Employment, Housing and Levelling Up. The flagship Levelling Up Department has been levelled to the extent that I think there is only one Minister left standing. When will these Ministers be replaced? What qualifications does someone now need to be a Minister in this Government? Who knows? Not only are the Government unable to carry out their basic functions in Whitehall, but the business of this House cannot proceed.

The Leader of the House may know that the Paymaster General has referred questions about cancelled Bill Committees to him, so I will ask him: what is happening to today’s Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill Committee, which should have been going for, I think, 12 minutes by now? When will that be rescheduled? The Northern Ireland Secretary resigned just a few hours ago. Where does that leave the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill? What is the plan for all of this?

The Leader of the House has announced business on the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill for 13, 18 and 19 July. Considering the seriousness of that legislation and the impact it has on our country’s reputation, and the fact that this Prime Minister is now a caretaker only, what mandate do the Government have to proceed? This is affecting not just primary but secondary legislation. During the passage of the Building Safety Bill, the Minister admitted that there were unresolved issues that needed statutory instruments passing to protect leaseholders. Is there anyone who can sign these SIs?

In an excruciating appearance before the Liaison Committee yesterday, the Prime Minister admitted he had met a former KGB agent who had links to Putin, without officials being present, in Italy when he was Foreign Secretary. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) was able to ask questions about that this morning with your permission, Mr Speaker, but not a single one was answered. This is about security. If my right hon. Friend is unable to get answers in the context of a chemical weapons attack on British soil in which British people died, how can this be a Government who are functioning? I ask the Leader of the House, with the greatest respect: how does any of this look like a functioning Government?

Week after week, the Leader of the House has failed to answer my very specific questions on the appointment of a new ethics adviser. Given the new revelations regarding Lebedev, surely he will agree with me today—I hope he will also answer my question—that a new ethics adviser is needed. Can he tell us when this vacancy will be filled? Can he guarantee that the investigations that were ongoing prior to Lord Geidt’s resignation will be completed? The first duty of any Government, as we all know, is to keep their people safe. When the Security Minister resigns in the morning, we cannot allow the vacancy to drift into the evening, let alone the weekend, and for this Conservative party to continue putting national security at risk.

Every single Tory MP—every single one—should take a long, hard look in the mirror and ask themselves how we got here with a Government who have collapsed before our eyes. They are putting the British people through an excruciating and dangerous act of desperation with a caretaker Prime Minister who, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford said, is even more dangerous as a caretaker than as Prime Minister. I may disagree with the Leader of the House politically, but I have huge respect for his office and for that of the Prime Minister. They propped him up, they were complicit, they have overseen 12 years of stagnation, declining public services and empty promises. We need a fresh start with a Labour Government.

[Mark Spencer]

There is a very clear difference between the hon. Lady and me. Now is the moment for calmness and professionalism, not for ranting and overexcitement.

The hon. Lady mentioned national security and, before we proceed, we should recognise that today is the 15th anniversary of the 7/7 bombings. The Home Secretary is the Minister responsible for national security, and she is in office—she is still Home Secretary—and in control of our national security. There is no issue on our national security at any level at this moment in time.

I have presented the business of the House, and there are Ministers in place to deliver the programme for the next two weeks. The hon. Lady asked how we will proceed with the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill. If she had been paying attention, she would know that we have concluded the Bill in this House. She is very concerned about legislation, but there were only four Labour Members in the House to consider the Bill. That is how seriously they take the troubles in Northern Ireland, and there were zero Liberal Democrats. Only four Labour Members could be bothered to turn up to debate the Bill.

The hon. Lady mentioned the chemical weapons attack in Salisbury. She supported a Leader of the Opposition who wanted to send the evidence back for Russia to consider. Just pause for a moment and think about who she supported at that moment in time.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

You have nothing to say.

[Mark Spencer]

It is all right heckling and saying we have nothing to say, but we are getting on with the business of Government in a calm way. Some Public Bill Committees will not run today, but they will be back up and running very soon.

The hon. Lady finished on Lord Geidt. I declare my interest, but I am assured that processes are in place and that these matters will continue to be reviewed. The result of those processes will come forward very soon.

Business of the House

Thangam Debbonaire Excerpts

Thursday 30th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mark Spencer)]

It will be a pleasure.

The business for the week commencing 4 July will include:

Monday 4 July—Conclusion of consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill.

Tuesday 5 July—Estimates day (1st allotted day). There will be a debate on estimates relating to the Department for Work and Pensions in so far as it relates to the spending of the Department for Work and Pensions on the cost of living measures, on the Office of the Secretary of State for Wales in so far as it relates to the spending of the Office of the Secretary of State for Wales on measures to support the Welsh economy and its consequences for funding the devolved institutions, and on the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy in so far as it relates to the spending of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on action on climate change and decarbonisation, followed by a motion to approve a Ways and Means resolution relating to the energy (oil and gas) profits levy.

Wednesday 6 July—Estimates day (2nd allotted day). There will be a debate on estimates relating to the Department for Education, and on the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office in so far as it relates to the spending of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office on the strategy for international development. At 7 pm, the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.

Thursday 7 July—Proceedings on the Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Bill, followed by a debate on a motion on economic crime law enforcement resourcing, followed by a general debate on the Government’s alcohol taxation considerations and alcohol duty review. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 8 July—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 11 July will include:

Monday 11 July—Consideration of an allocation of time motion, followed by all stages of the Energy (Oil and Gas) Profits Levy Bill.

Tuesday 12 July—Remaining stages of the Online Safety Bill (day 1), followed by debate on a motion on restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster.

Wednesday 13 July—Consideration in Committee of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill (day 1).

Thursday 14 July—Business to be determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 15 July—The House will consider private Members’ Bills.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I thank the Leader of the House for the forthcoming business. I have to ask him: what is it about Tuesday afternoons and Tory MPs finding themselves anywhere but the voting Lobby to defend their own Government? For the fourth week in a row, Labour has successfully passed Opposition day motions in this House. From cracking down on Tory sleaze and scandal to tackling the cost of living crisis and getting a grip on backlog Britain, Labour has a plan and Tories do not even bother turning up. Picking and choosing which votes they will respect and which they will ignore is no way to run a parliamentary democracy. It is disrespectful to this House, to which I remind him his Government are accountable. How will the Government honour Labour’s successful motions?

Whether it is passports, driving licences, GP and hospital appointments, queues at airports or even waiting times to start cancer treatment, backlog Britain is having a serious impact on people’s lives. Where is the plan? While I am on it, the Government have no plan that I can see to end the 12 years of slow growth and high taxation that we have suffered under successive Tory Governments. Will the Leader of the House ask the Chancellor to come to this House and deliver the emergency Budget that the country so badly needs?

Last week, the Leader of the House did not answer my question about when we can expect a new Government ethics adviser in post. I know that it is a tough job, given this Government’s record, but it is an important one and we need urgency. I ask the Leader of the House again: when will the vacancy be filled? Can he guarantee that investigations that were ongoing prior to Lord Geidt’s resignation will be completed?

The Social Security (Special Rules for End of Life) Bill will allow people who are thought to be in the final year of their life to get fast-tracked access to various benefits. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) has long campaigned for it. We all agree with it. There really is no excuse for the hold-up of this Bill. Terminally ill people deserve the reassurance that they will have the financial support that they need. It is a short Bill and has passed all stages in the Lords. Will the Leader of the House bring forward this incredibly important yet uncontroversial legislation for Second Reading as soon as possible?

I understand that the Youth Parliament has not yet received a date for when its members will be allowed to come to the House again. Is that because the Government have nothing to say about the many important issues affecting young people, and we do? Could the Leader of the House give the Youth Parliament a date for when its members will be welcomed back to the Chamber?

On Tuesday, Nicola Sturgeon announced plans to go through the courts to try to hold an illegal referendum in Scotland. However, the First Minister gave the game away in her statement to the Scottish Parliament. It seems that it was not about a referendum; it was about the next general election. Nicola Sturgeon seems to be happy for the 700,000 people on NHS waiting lists in Scotland to take a back seat while constitutional debates take precedence for the Scottish National party. I note the striking similarities with the Conservative Westminster Government, who want to make the next election all about cultural wedge issues. The best way to protect and strengthen the UK is clearly to elect a Labour Government who will deliver for every nation and region of our country. The SNP has no greater asset in its attempt to break up the UK than the Prime Minister. Does the Leader of the House really think that propping up this failed Prime Minister is helping the Union?

Yesterday, the International Trade Secretary pulled out of her scheduled evidence session with the International Trade Committee on the UK-Australia trade deal, following a damning report the night before on—ironically—the lack of parliamentary scrutiny of the deal. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) said yesterday, when a Secretary of State runs away from scrutiny of her own trade deal, it is worrying and, frankly, embarrassing. Will the Leader of the House remind his colleague of the importance of simply turning up for Select Committee sessions?

This Tory sense of entitlement is symbolic of a Government who have dragged their feet for more than a decade; a Government who are out of touch and out of ideas; a Government who are unable to govern, unwilling to govern, and indeed incapable of governing. As the voters said last Thursday, the Prime Minister’s game is up. It is time for a Labour Government with a plan to back working families.

[Mark Spencer]

I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. Let me begin by saying that we do have a plan for the NHS: we have a plan to invest in our health service. We introduced the health and social care levy in order to invest billions in it. She complained about the backlogs that covid has caused and the challenges that it has presented to the UK. Our plan is to invest in our health service, but she chose to vote against that investment rather than supporting it.

The hon. Lady talked about a Labour Government delivering for the UK. Let us just look at the facts. Let us, for instance, compare cancer outcomes in England with those in Wales. In England, 65% of cancer patients start treatment within six weeks; in Wales, the figure is only 55%. It is because Labour runs the NHS in Wales, and does not run it as efficiently as England, that the outcomes in Wales are not as positive as those in England, and that is a great shame.

The hon. Lady mentioned the Youth Parliament. I think Mr Speaker has plans to allow it to return, but that is a matter for him.

Business of the House

Thangam Debbonaire Excerpts

Thursday 23rd June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mark Spencer)]

It will be a pleasure.

The business for the week commencing 27 June will include:

Monday 27 June—Second Reading of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill.

Tuesday 28 June—Opposition day (4th allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition. Subject to be announced.

Wednesday 29 June—Consideration in committee of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill (Day 1).



Thursday 30 June—Debate on a motion on Iran’s nuclear programme followed by, general debate on 50 years of pride in the UK. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 1 July—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 4 July will include:

Monday 4 July—Conclusion of consideration in committee and remaining stages of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill.

Tuesday 5 July—Estimates day (1st allotted day). Subjects to be confirmed.

Wednesday 6 July—Estimates day (2nd allotted day). Subjects to be confirmed.

At 7.00pm, the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I thank the Leader of the House for the forthcoming business. I hope he had a wonderful time at the Tory party’s summer ball on Monday night. I hear the top prize auctioned off was a £120,000 slap-up meal for four including the Prime Minister, his predecessor and her predecessor. The absolute audacity of Tory MPs telling food bank users that they do not know how to spend their money, when Tory donors seem to be willing to pay the going rate of £40,000 per failed and failing Prime Minister. It is shocking. Tory donors, clearly unaffected by the cost of living crisis, are wined and dined by the Cabinet when working people face inflation at more than 9%, lower pay and backlog Britain grinding the country to a halt. Where in the upcoming business is the Government’s long-term plan to deal with all that?

Perhaps I can offer the three recent Conservative Prime Ministers a conversation starter: 12 years of underfunding and Tory mismanagement of our NHS; and record numbers of people waiting for care and waiting longer than ever before. In Wakefield, since 2019, the people of that great city have lost three local GP practices and 300,000 GP appointments per year, all while the Chancellor puts up their taxes. Does the Leader of the House think it is fair that his Government are asking the people of Wakefield to pay more, for less?

On Tuesday, Labour’s successful motion called on the Health Secretary simply to meet his Government’s own target of recruiting 6,000 extra GPs and to ensure that everyone who needs an NHS dentist can get one. Those are not unreasonable demands, but the Health Secretary cannot even meet them. He has admitted that he is not on track, so can the Leader of the House explain to his voters why his Government are breaking yet another one of their promises? What is the plan? People around the country, including those in Wakefield, will want to see it. Will he ask the Health Secretary to make a statement on how he is going to train, recruit and hang on to the GPs we need? I remind him that they are the Government and our motion passed. They should do their job and at least attempt to sort this mess out.

It is another week of the Government engulfed in Tory sleaze and scandal, instead of dealing with problems in our NHS. I do welcome the fact that they have realised that they obviously need an ethics adviser, but they must get on with recruiting a new one. On Tuesday, Labour’s ethics motion called for urgency. The Tories voted against it, so I ask the Leader of the House: when can we expect to see the ethics vacancy filled? Can he guarantee that the investigations that were ongoing prior to Lord Geidt’s resignation will be completed?

Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) asked the Prime Minister for a straight yes or no on whether he had ever considered the appointment of his now spouse to a government post or one in any other organisation. We hear that No. 10 spoke to The Times after it published an article on this and the story disappeared. There is clearly something going on and it is clearly unethical to use a position as a very powerful person, possibly the most powerful person in the country, to get your partner a six-figure-salary job. The Prime Minister failed to deny this yesterday, so I am asking the Leader of the House now: could he advise us on what conversations were had and how far was this allowed to go?

Last week, the Leader of the House failed to address my question on missing legislation. The proposals on renters’ rights reforms last Thursday are welcome, but they were promised three years ago and all we have got is a White Paper. This is another example of the Government picking an issue, waving it around on a day they need a distraction and dropping it the next. This is no way to run a country. So when will the Leader of the House bring forward the actual legislation and give renters the rights they deserve, for which they been waiting for so long? Whether it is the distraction of sleaze and scandal, missing legislation or countless failed promises, the choice is stark: a Tory Government unable to govern or Labour, a party that believes in democracy, decency and respect, with a plan to deal with backlog Britain and tackle the Tory cost of living crisis. People up and down the country will be waking up this morning, including in Wakefield, knowing that it is time for a fresh start.

[Mark Spencer]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. What is clear is that the Government are getting on with the job. We are making our streets safer; we are recruiting 20,000 more police officers, and we have already got 13,500 of those recruited. We continue to grow the economy to address the cost of living challenge that people face. That is why we have invested £37 billion to help people through the challenges that we face—frankly, the whole world is facing these challenges. We are funding the NHS to deal with those covid backlogs, which is why we introduced the health and social care levy; we are talking about £39 billion-worth investment in our NHS. The Labour party did not support that investment in our health service. We are providing leadership that is needed in these challenging times. We are the strongest supporter of Ukraine. We have delivered the fastest vaccine roll-out in Europe, which is why the economy continues to grow.

There was one question that I will address—there was one genuine question in all of that rant: what did I know about the allegation that the hon. Lady made about the Prime Minister’s wife. I can tell her and the House that I was the Government Chief Whip from the moment the Prime Minister became the Prime Minister. I think I am the longest serving Chief Whip since 2010. I was in meetings and rooms with the Prime Minister probably more than any other Minister during that period. I never ever in my political career heard mention of the Prime Minister’s wife getting a role—ever, to be clear.



What we heard in the shadow Leader of the House’s comments was anything at all she wants to talk about, other than the crisis that the unions are delivering to this country as we sit here. Look behind her at those empty Benches. The reason those Benches are empty is that they all ran like rats to get a train yesterday—[Interruption.] Across the House, colleagues had to go and get trains yesterday because of the misery the unions are pouring on to this country. Let us look at some of the working practices they are trying to defend.

Whole teams have to change a socket when one person could do it; they want nine people to go and do it. They want a walking time of one minute to take 12 minutes. [Hon. Members: “Shocking!”] This is absolutely true. A break time starts, and if one of their managers says hello to them during it, the break has to start again because management have interrupted it. Technology now exists with cameras to check the safety of rail lines—a very important job—but the unions insist that they have to be walking checks. Eight rail workers have been killed on the rail lines in the past two years doing those walking checks when technology exists to protect those lives and to look after people on our railways. Best of all, there was a threatened strike over the replacement of a tea urn with a kettle.

That is the sort of thing that these people are defending. I call on the hon. Lady and her friends’ paymasters to get back round the table, talk to Network Rail, and ease the misery that they are imposing on working people up and down this country.

Speaker’s Conference

Thangam Debbonaire Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

I, too, very much welcome the motion on the Speaker’s Conference and thank Mr Speaker for his leadership on this matter. It offers us all an opportunity to consider the employment conditions of Members’ staff. This is the right time to be doing that, following another damaging few months for the reputation of this House when we have had serious allegations and convictions against some Members. It is not a very large number, but it is important that we ensure we are providing good working practices for all Members’ staff. This is a really important step forward.

Since Gemma White’s report into the bullying and harassment of MPs’ staff, the House has made a lot of progress in how we employ, manage and treat our staff, providing them with a form of redress, complaint and assessment of those complaints, but we now need to take further steps. For instance, we have had the establishment of the Members’ Services Team, to whom I pay great tribute. I have always found them to be extremely helpful and approachable, and they are a fount of knowledge. I urge colleagues who may not have come across the team to make use of the fact that they are camped out in the Portcullis House atrium every day. They offer a friendly face, and help awaits. Members now have access to a range of best practice employment guides, and the opportunity to attend regular workshops. Again, all Members are encouraged to use the service, but we need to build on it and strengthen our structures and processes.

I want to place on record the fact that some Members have expressed concern that the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority will be the body that ends up employing Members’ staff. The point of the conference is to look at all reasonable options, but it is important to put on record that my understanding—I am not speaking on behalf of IPSA—is that IPSA has expressed reservations about whether that would be appropriate. I certainly feel that, at the moment, we have other options to consider, which is what the conference is for.

In response to the question from the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) and the Leader of the House’s answer, I reiterate that the motion specifies the date of the first report—not the second, third or final report—as 31 October, but it is important that the House is able to debate the reports at regular intervals and to scrutinise the work being done. As the Leader of the House mentioned, the Speaker’s Conference will have cross-party membership. It will take on Select Committee powers and will have the power to require evidence, witness statements and information to be prepared for it in the same way as a Select Committee, which I think is right. The Leader of the House also mentioned—I would echo this—that the previous Speaker’s Conference marked a point on which we have made much progress, because having a Speaker’s Conference on increasing diversity in ethnic and gender representation in this place has been followed by a marked increase in all of the above. I feel that this bodes well for the next Speaker’s Conference.

The House of Commons is a beacon for democracy around the world. I feel that we have in our hands the opportunity to make it also a model workplace that is at the forefront of workers’ rights, with strong protections in place for all our staff, because future generations should inherit a safer and more inclusive Parliament where everyone has somewhere to turn, and where staff are able to fulfil their potential in every single team across this House.

Business of the House

Thangam Debbonaire Excerpts

Thursday 16th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mark Spencer)]

It will be a pleasure. The business for the week commencing 20 June will include:

Monday 20 June—Second Reading of the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill.

Tuesday 21 June—Opposition day (3nd allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition. Subject to be announced.

Wednesday 22 June—Consideration of an allocation of time motion, followed by all stages of the Social Security (Additional Payments) Bill.

Thursday 23 June—General debate on investing in the future of motor neurone disease, followed by a general debate on the national food strategy and food security. Business determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 24 June—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 27 June will include:

Monday 27 June—Committee of the whole House on the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill (day 1).

Tuesday 28 June—Conclusion of Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the forthcoming business, but all we can conclude from his statement is that, whether it is failing to deal with the Tory cost of living crisis or just adding to backlog Britain, this is a Government with no plan. They continue on with reckless undermining of British institutions and principles that we on this side of the House are proud of.

And now the Prime Minister adds to his own labour market shortage after losing his second ethics adviser in just 14 months. There is a reason why even his hand-picked referees cannot defend him: it is because the Prime Minister is indefensible. He should come to this House and come clean about the events that led to Lord Geidt’s resignation. I am glad that Labour’s urgent question finally pushed the Government into announcing they would publish the resignation letter, but why was it not published earlier? Why has it not been published yet? Will the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister to come to this House and answer questions after it is published? Does he have any answers to the questions put by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) during the urgent question on concerns, which I share, about the impact of all this on public faith in our democracy?

Meanwhile, Labour, the party of patriotism, stands up for our world-renowned broadcasting industry. On Tuesday, in our successful Opposition day motion, we called on Government to reverse the decision to sell off Channel 4. That provides great entertainment, quality news reporting, good jobs around the country—including in Bristol—and projects British values and creativity overseas, so could the Leader of the House tell us why the Government are prioritising selling off Channel 4 over dealing with food, energy and fuel bills?

Not happy with selling off our country’s most treasured institutions, Government are also selling out our global reputation. Breaking international law with the Northern Ireland protocol legislation damages our standing on the world stage, and it does not solve the problem. It does look like the Government are deliberately making things worse to distract from their own civil war. Ministers say that it is normal only to publish a summary of legal advice, but this does happen to be the only Prime Minister to have broken the law while in office. So I ask the Leader of the House: if the Government have nothing to hide, will he undertake to publish the legal advice in full?

This morning, we heard that more than 150 men who worked at the British embassy in Kabul are still in Afghanistan. Many have applied to come here, but have not heard back from this Government, and many have been tortured, which is shameful. The Home Secretary told us only yesterday that there are supposed to be safe and legal routes here. This needs sorting. Will the Leader of the House get the Government on to this today?

Last week, a BBC investigation revealed shocking abuse and safeguarding failures in children’s homes run by Calcot Services for Children. At the same time as these alleged incidents, the company recorded massive profits. We have not had a response from Government, so could the Leader of the House please ask an Education Minister for a statement?

The Government’s failure to tackle backlog Britain is piling misery on to millions. Waiting lists in Government departments cripple our economy, cost the taxpayer billions of pounds and prevent people from getting on with their lives. Just look at the Home Office. We have families forced to pay for fast-track passport services and millions wasted on failed outsourced contracts, including a courier service—you could not make this up—that is losing hundreds of passports. This is a Home Office in freefall.

Labour called for an apology from the passports Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster)—but he cannot even tell us the scale of the backlog. He said work continues to recruit more staff over the summer. Where is the urgency? Given the Home Office’s well-known top-down culture of fear, I am sceptical that it will be able to fill the jobs. So could the Leader of the House ask the Home Secretary to make a statement telling us exactly how many outstanding passport applications there are and how she plans to recruit more staff?

It is worth mentioning that backlog Britain seems to extend to the Government’s own legislative agenda. The renters’ rights reforms announced today are welcome, but they were promised three years ago. All we have is a White Paper. When will they bring the legislation forward and give renters the rights they deserve?

Downing Street is now Britain’s boulevard of broken dreams—a Queen’s Speech in disarray, failure to tackle the Tory cost of living crisis, writing off billions to fraudsters, selling off British institutions, selling out Britain’s reputation and no grip on backlog Britain. A party unable to govern ought to make way for one that can. Labour will get the country back on track.

[Mark Spencer]

We are getting into a regular pattern, where the hon. Lady basically stands up and has her weekly rant. She started with Lord Geidt. We have just spent an hour debating that and the Minister I think answered those questions. Those letters will be published very soon and we await that. She went on to talk about the sale of Channel 4. I think we had a slight glimpse of Labour party DNA, where apparently public is good and private is bad. Actually, that does not stack up. Channel 4 is a great TV station and releasing it into the private sector, and allowing it to flourish and compete with other great private sector programme providers, will allow it to continue to be a world leader. We look forward to it flourishing within the private sector.

Afghanistan is a very important issue and the Government managed to get out 15,000 people under very difficult circumstances. I acknowledge that there are people who struggle to get out, and we continue to help people to find safe routes to get to the United Kingdom. It was a huge success to get in there and get thousands of people out in the middle of a war zone, and the people involved in that process should be commended.

The hon. Lady went on to talk about waiting lists and passports. The statistics are out there: 91% of people get their passport within six weeks and we continue to recruit more people. I acknowledge that 91% of people getting their passport within six weeks means that 9% of people are struggling to get their passport. That is why the Home Secretary is bringing on more staff. She has brought 750 on already. More are coming before the summer. We acknowledge that we need to get people their passports, so that they can enjoy a summer holiday post covid as we move forward.

The hon. Lady made passing reference to the backlogs in the NHS. That is why we introduced the health and social care levy to help fund the NHS and provide support to get the backlogs down post pandemic. It is disappointing that the Labour party decided not to support that investment in the NHS and not to address those challenges. We can see through it—Labour just likes to complain. It does not have a plan. It just wants to criticise the Government because it does have not a plan, and it will do anything it can not to talk about its union bosses who are going to call strikes and make people’s lives a misery. It just wants to throw mud and criticise, to hide the fact that it does not have a plan for the country and the British people.

Business of the House

Thangam Debbonaire Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mark Spencer)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a short business statement about business for tomorrow.

Wednesday 15 June—Consideration of a Business of the House motion, followed by a debate on a motion on rail strikes, followed by Second Reading of the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill.

Thursday’s business remains unchanged and as previously announced. I shall make the usual statement announcing further business on Thursday.

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

I thank the Leader of the House for the statement. I clearly need to remind the Government that they are the Government. Instead of touring the television studios in an attempt to defend a failing Prime Minister and grandstanding tomorrow in this place, the Transport Secretary should be relentlessly focusing on getting the parties around the table and getting an agreement hammered out. If he continues to fail, that is on him.

The backdrop to this dispute is that the Tories have overseen a managed decline of our railways. If all the Transport Secretary can come up with is to bring in untrained agency staff, it is clear that this is a Government who have really run out of ideas. Slashing safety standards and putting passengers at risk is not a solution. I remind the Transport Secretary of his job. He is meant to be in government. He holds the power to resolve these disputes. Strikes next week are not inevitable and he could make sure that they are avoided.

In Labour-run Wales, train staff are not going on strike, and all sides are working together to manage change. Labour is on the side of working people. We want our railways to work and people to be able to get to work. Instead of grandstanding, the Government should get a grip and sort out this mess.

[Mark Spencer]

I think we may have tickled a little nerve somewhere. Perhaps there is a little bit of sensitivity here. I encourage the hon. Lady to approach her union bosses with the same enthusiasm and get them round the table to stop the misery that they are about to inflict on the great British public—on students who will miss their exams, on people who want to get to job interviews. Let us get round the table and discuss this, and I call on her to encourage her union bosses to do exactly the same.

Business of the House

Thangam Debbonaire Excerpts

Thursday 9th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mark Spencer)]

It will be a pleasure. The business for the week commencing 13 June will include:

Monday 13 June—Remaining stages of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill.

Tuesday 14 June—Opposition day (2nd allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition. Subject to be announced.

Wednesday 15 June—Second Reading of the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill.

Thursday 16 June—General debate on the fifth anniversary of the Grenfell Tower fire, followed by general debate on abuse of short-term letting and the sharing economy. The subjects for these dates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 17 June—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 20 June will include:

Monday 20 June—Second Reading of a Bill.

Tuesday 21 June—Opposition day (3nd allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition. Subject to be announced.

Right hon. and hon. Members may also wish to note that a motion for the House to agree this Session’s sitting Fridays has been tabled for the remaining Orders.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Splendid!

[Thangam Debbonaire]

It is good hear the hon. Member’s delight at the scheduling of private Members’ Bills.

I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the forthcoming business, but I have to say: what has happened to the Government’s Queen’s Speech? Have they lost it down the back of a sofa? Where are all those Bills we were promised? While I am on it, can the Leader of the House tell me why the Public Advocate Bill proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) was not even mentioned in the Queen’s Speech; and why, a year after the collapse of the criminal trials, there is still no Government response to the 2017 report on the lessons learned from the Hillsborough disaster?

Whether it is cancer waiting times, long waits for passports and driving licences or queues at airports, we are in backlog Britain, and the Leader of the House’s statement does nothing to deal with that either. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister seems to be once again embarking on yet another attempt to reset his premiership. But there are only so many times you can try turning something off and then on again, only to find it is still broken and you just need to get rid. Tory MPs have made their choice, though.

At the start of so-called health week, the Culture Secretary admitted what Labour has known all along—that underfunding and Tory mismanagement left the health service “wanting” and “inadequate” as we went into the pandemic. When asked about this yesterday, the Prime Minister did not deny it. With so many lives lost, Members must be given the chance to question the Secretary of State on the lessons learned. Will the Leader of the House ask the Health Secretary to make a statement clarifying this?

Yesterday, the report on health and social care leadership was published. In his statement to the House, the Health Secretary did not seem to have any idea of whether or when the Government would implement the report’s recommendations. Too often, this Government commission a review and then drag their feet when it comes to implementation. Could the Leader of the House give us a firm date for when the Government will publish their plan to sort this out?

On Tuesday, Labour’s Opposition day motion gave the Government the chance to start putting right months of Tory sleaze. Our motion backed the crucial reforms put forward by the independent Committee on Standards in Public Life. But not a single Tory MP bothered to turn up. The Government have clearly given up on listening to Parliament because Ministers do not like the outcome when they do. Picking and choosing which votes they will respect and which they will ignore is no way to run a Government, and it is disrespectful to this House and our constituents. After Labour’s success in winning that vote, will the Leader of the House confirm that the Government will now introduce these vital proposals on standards in public life?

Meanwhile, the recommendations of the Standards Committee, so ably chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), on strengthening the code of conduct for MPs are a very welcome step. The Leader of the House is nodding. So will he allow time, in Government time, for these recommendations to be debated as soon as possible? Labour has long called for transparency of Members’ interests and for a ban on paid consultancy work, but we would like the Government to go further. There is a clear need for stronger enforcement of the rules. Will the Leader of the House bring forward the time for that debate but also support Labour’s proposals for the establishment of an integrity and ethics commission?

Backlog Britain is evident even in the Government’s own Departments. I know that the Leader of the House is sympathetic to this: it is about the late, tardy or even no responses to ministerial letters and written parliamentary questions. Pressure from Labour means that new data has been published, and some response times are improving, but unfortunately some are not improving or getting worse. The Department of Health responded to only a third of correspondence on time. Even timely responses from the Government’s flagship Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Department have plummeted. We know from our staff, mine in Bristol West and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden), the huge amount of time that is being wasted on hold—there are the phone bills as well—to Government hotlines, or standing, sitting or whatever in slow queues in Portcullis House, lasting for hours, for the Home Office hub. Please, does the Leader of the House have a plan for dealing with backlog Britain in Parliament?

The Government argue that we must move on from partygate and from 148 of their MPs voting against their own leader, but it is evident that this Conservative party cannot govern, has no answers to backlog Britain, and has no plan to deal with the Tory cost of living crisis, whereas Labour does have a plan to get money back in people’s pockets, to bring down bills, to deliver a new generation of well-paid jobs right across the country, and to get the economy firing on all cylinders. Frankly, it cannot come too soon.

[Mark Spencer]

I thank the hon. Lady for her series of questions. Of course, Mr Speaker, I should apologise for not announcing a significant political event taking place tomorrow: your birthday. I am sure the whole House will celebrate as you reach another significant milestone in your way through life. I trust you will have a good day.

The Queen’s Speech is rammed full of Bills, and they are coming forward. We have some time to deliver on them, so the hon. Lady should be patient. I am sure we will munch our way through that huge legislative agenda. We have already begun, with a number of Bills having started their journey through Parliament, and it is an ambitious programme, which we will deliver on behalf of the British people.

The Government recognise the challenges the health service is facing. That is why, coming out of the global pandemic, we introduced the health and social care levy to support the health service as it tries to deal with those challenges. That is a huge cash investment in our health service, and I am sorry that the hon. Lady found herself incapable of voting for and supporting it. If she compares how the health service is run in England and in Wales, she will see that there are significant advantages to being poorly in England. The health service here will diagnose people quicker, put them back on their feet quicker and get them back to their lives quicker.

Of course standards in public life are important. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and the Privileges Committee for the work they have done. The Government are considering the Committee’s report. I think it is important that we reflect and take our time giving this big and important report our full consideration, and that we move forward on a cross-party basis.

Business of the House

Thangam Debbonaire Excerpts

Thursday 26th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mark Spencer)]

It would be a pleasure.

The business for the week commencing 6 June will include:

Monday 6 June—Second Reading of the National Security Bill.

Tuesday 7 June—Opposition day (1st allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the Official Opposition, subject to be announced.

Wednesday 8 June—Second Reading of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill.

Thursday 9 June—General debate on social housing and building safety followed by a general debate on the Government’s strategic priorities for OFWAT. The subject for the second debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 10 June—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 13 June will include:

Monday 13 June—Remaining stages of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill.

Tuesday 14 June—Second Reading of the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill.

Wednesday 15 June—Opposition day (2nd allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the Official Opposition, subject to be announced.

Thursday 16 June—Business to be determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 17 June—The House will not be sitting.

Right hon. and hon. Members might also wish to know that, subject to the progress of business, the House will rise for the summer recess at the close of business on Thursday 21 July and return on Monday 5 September. The House will rise for the conference recess at the close of business on Thursday 22 September and return on Monday 17 October. The House will rise for the November recess at the close of business on Wednesday 9 November and return on Monday 14 November. The House will rise for the Christmas recess at the close of business on Wednesday 21 December and return on Monday 9 January. The House will rise for the February recess at the close of business on Thursday 9 February and return on Monday 20 February. Sitting Fridays will be announced in due course. I hope that that information is welcome news to right hon. and hon. Members.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I thank the Leader of the House for giving us not only the forthcoming business but the recess dates, for which members of staff have been asking me. I am very grateful: he went further even than I asked, so fair do’s—Brucie bonus time!

I start, and I am sure the Leader of the House will join me, by wishing the Queen well on her platinum jubilee. I look forward to the Chamber commemorating that historic milestone later today. She has shown remarkable leadership and dedication to public service over 70 years.

I also invite the Leader of the House to join me in congratulating Labour’s sister party in Australia on its positive campaign in the election down under. I am inspired by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s victory, ousting a stale Conservative Government who were out of touch and out of ideas.

Yesterday, the damning verdict on Downing Street’s law-breaking parties was published. Can the Leader of the House say whether anyone in Government received a copy of Sue Gray’s report in advance of its publication and whether they attempted to change it? Failures of leadership and judgment at the heart of Government are mentioned in the report, and it was particularly sickening to learn of the total lack of respect for and poor treatment of staff, with security staff being mocked and cleaners left to mop up. Will he clarify whether any of those who mocked staff are special advisers? If so, has the Prime Minister sacked them? If not, why not?

The report concludes that those at the top must bear responsibility for a culture that allowed such flagrant disregard for the rules. Yesterday, the Prime Minister seemed too busy focusing on saving his own skin to deal with the Tory cost of living crisis. He also said that all senior leadership in No. 10 has changed, which I found a little odd. Does he not count himself as senior leadership?

On the cost of living crisis, one in eight energy customers is already struggling to pay their bills, and that is before bills are expected to go up by a further £800 in October. We know that the Chancellor will make a statement shortly and we will of course scrutinise his proposals carefully, but why has it taken so long? It really does look as though the Government delayed their support for struggling families so that they could time the announcement as a distraction from the Sue Gray report. Every day, the Government have dragged their feet, as they continue to do, refusing to introduce Labour’s windfall tax on oil and gas producers. Hundreds of millions of pounds have been added to the bills of households across the country.

Madam Deputy Speaker, you and I agree that it is important that Members are able to hold Ministers to account in this place first, yet it has been widely trailed in the media this morning that the Chancellor will be making the inevitable screeching U-turn that we all knew he would have to make eventually. Will the Leader of the House please remind his colleagues that major policy statements should be made by Ministers in this place first, not briefed to the media?

I am sorry to have to bring this up again, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I have cleared it with the Clerk, the Table Office, and the other Madam Deputy Speaker, the right hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dame Eleanor Laing). I want to make that clear. There have been allegations made about the Conservative party’s failure to take proper action following allegations put to it about alleged child abuse by a parliamentary candidate. Will the Leader of the House now attempt to restore victims and survivors’ faith in the Conservative party’s safeguarding processes? He could do that now by committing to an independent inquiry into the party’s handling of such issues.

Months ago, we were promised fresh data on response times to written parliamentary questions and ministerial replies to MPs’ correspondence. I am glad to say that after pressure from those on the Opposition Benches, a written statement on the subject is on the Order Paper today. However, it does not solve the problem of the long wait that Members’ staff are experiencing, not only as regards Parliamentary questions but when calling MPs’ hotlines, such as those in the Home Office. Constituency offices are even starting to receive significantly higher phone bills for the office as a result. Will the Leader of the House urge the Home Secretary, just as an example, to increase capacity for the hotline so that Members and our staff—it is usually our staff—can best support constituents, such as those constituents who cannot get passports not just for a well deserved holiday but for ID for a job or somewhere to live?

With a Government too busy plotting how they will get away with it, as cited in the Sue Gray report, rather than introducing a proper plan to deal with soaring inflation, falling wages and a stagnant economy, it is now time for Tory MPs to act and remove the Prime Minister, who has lost the confidence of the British people.

[Mark Spencer]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thought that you would be in Doncaster celebrating its city status, for which I know you have been campaigning for a long time.

I join the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) in celebrating the Queen’s 70th jubilee. It will be a huge opportunity for the country to celebrate and get together to recognise a huge achievement in public service by Her Majesty. I also join her in congratulating the Australian Government on their success. We look forward to working with them on trade and international matters as we move forward.

We then got into the usual flurry of accusations and snipes. Of course, the hon. Lady started with the Sue Gray report. I am glad that Sue Gray has finally managed to get her report out there. It identifies the ongoing challenges in No. 10 but, as the Prime Ministers made clear, he has addressed the culture in No. 10 and changed the senior management team. I think he was also shocked, as many colleagues would be, by the treatment of security and cleaning staff. That is why yesterday the Prime Minister went around and apologised in person to those security and cleaning teams on behalf of those people who were rude to them. I think that was the right thing to do. The Prime Minister has made it clear that the culture has now changed within No. 10, and he is now focused on what matters to the British people: the global fight against inflation, Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and making sure that our constituents’ priorities are the Government’s priorities, as they always have been.

The hon. Lady mentioned the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He will be here at this Dispatch Box very soon, and I will not pre-empt what he is about to say, for no other reason than that I do not know. I look forward to hearing what the Chancellor says. What I do know is that this Chancellor has already announced £22 billion-worth of support. He is a Chancellor who, instead of giving us knee-jerk reactions and political gimmicks, thinks through the economic and fiscal plans that he will bring forward and makes sure that in those plans he gives genuine support to those who need it, while not incentivising people away from making long-term investments to continue to pay the Exchequer the tax from their successful businesses. That is the appropriate thing to do.

The hon. Lady finished by mentioning parliamentary questions. Yesterday, I appeared in front of the Procedure Committee to answer questions. It is a challenge that I recognise; we need to do better. As a constituency MP, I understand that many across the House will certainly be frustrated by the progress or the speed of return of some answers to parliamentary questions. As I have said before from the Dispatch Box, the global pandemic affected the speed with which some Departments answered, because they were focused on dealing with the pandemic. That excuse has now passed. We need to see an improvement in the response from different Departments.

However, I gently say to the hon. Lady—I know she is in her happy place when she is sniping from the sidelines—that this week we have seen the Labour party this week vote against the Public Order Bill, putting it on the side of Extinction Rebellion, not on the side of hard-working people. Extinction Rebellion are the people who seized an oil tanker full of cooking oil. We have seen Labour vote against the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill, because it has no interest in addressing the challenges that Northern Ireland faces. The shadow spokesman actually said that

“the rights of victims and veterans are equal to the rights of terrorists”.—[Official Report, 24 May 2022; Vol. 715, c. 193.]

The Labour party put itself in completely the wrong place this week. It will do anything it can to avoid taking responsibility and making the difficult decisions that this Government are having to take in the interests of the country.