Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority
Deidre Brock Excerpts(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
The SNP pays tribute to Sir Robert Owen, who left the IPSA board in April, and wishes him the best for the future. We welcome the appointment of Dame Laura Cox to fill the vacancy: with her extensive and esteemed judicial career and dedication to equality and human rights, she will bring invaluable experience to the role.
In 2018, as has been mentioned, Dame Laura led the independent inquiry into bullying and harassment of House of Commons staff, and was involved in selecting the chair and members of the Independent Expert Panel, so she has an in-depth knowledge of this place. I note that the appointments panel recognised her “strong understanding” of IPSA, its challenges, and the political landscape in which it operates. The panel also highlighted Dame Laura’s proven track record of making “difficult decisions” under “intense public scrutiny”. I have no doubt that she will be an exceptional addition to the IPSA board, and the SNP supports the motion.
Business of the House
Deidre Brock Excerpts(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the spokesperson for the Scottish National party.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
It is good to be back after a short absence on parliamentary business. First, I request a debate on conventions of this House. Normally, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) would have responded to the Prime Minister’s statement on NATO, but as we were not given any advance notice of that important statement, unlike His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, he was unable to be in his place to respond. There is a conventional expectation to be notified of such statements beforehand, as we should be made aware to ensure that we can scrutinise the Government properly. Will the Leader of the House take that up with her Government?
While I was away, I notice the Leader of the House had a day trip to Scotland. I hope she received the kind of warm welcome we always give to people visiting from afar. On her very brief visit, she will have been in a nation where not a single day has been lost in the health service to strikes; where the Government and teachers got together and negotiated a deal; where there is no profit motive when people turn the tap on for water in their homes; where water quality is among the best in Europe; where social policies, such as the Scottish child payment, have been universally welcomed; where unemployment is lower than the UK as a whole and economic growth faster; and where we continue to attract levels of foreign direct investment second only to London.
On her return to this place, she, like me, was no doubt depressed to be back under a regime that has given Scots the catastrophe of Brexit against our will, a debt burden greater than our entire GDP, crippling increases in mortgages, rents and food prices, and the expectation of the highest tax burden in Britain since the second world war by 2027-28. What a great thing it is to be governed by people so incompetent they cannot spend £1.9 billion on desperately needed housing in England—by the way, I hope the devolved nations can keep their Barnettised share of that, as we will certainly use it—and apparently cannot tell the difference between decriminalisation and legalisation, as Scotland’s Government try to take action to address drug deaths. The current approach of criminalising users, advocated by her Government, is clearly not working.
Finally, could we have time for a debate on the Government’s progress on their five doomed pledges? As always, I ask the Leader of the House to answer the questions first, before she reads out her next leadership bid script.
Penny Mordaunt
I will be laser-focused on what the hon. Lady raises. First, let me point out that she is incorrect. There has been some incorrect reporting with regards to £1.9 billion being handed back to the Treasury by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. The bulk of that spend still sits with that Department. The hon. Lady will know that we have delivered 2.3 million additional homes since 2010, the lion’s share of which are affordable homes. Our current build rate is up 108%, compared to when we first took power. It is important to point that out, and I thank her for allowing me to correct that incorrect line that has been running.
I think the hon. Lady is slightly delusional regarding the SNP’s record. She talks about trying to tackle drug deaths. The SNP has the worst record of managing this problem, the worst record of drug deaths in Europe and does not fare well with regard to water pollution. That may have been a reason the SNP put out a complaint about the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; it wanted her to go to Holyrood to be drilled by SNP colleagues there. But it is this House that will hold the Secretary of State to account. So her colleagues will have to enjoy their biscuits without “Coffey” in Holyrood, which makes for a nice change from their Westminster colleagues, who I understand have been having a lot of meetings with their Chief Whip—with coffee, but without biscuits.
On the hon. Lady’s final point on today’s statement, I shall look into that, because it is a courtesy and people should expect to be able to see statements in advance. She did a very good job of filling in for her colleague, who probably wanted to be here and I certainly would have liked to hear what questions they would have asked. After all, the SNP, which wishes to have an independent Scotland in NATO, does not realise that that is incompatible with its position on nuclear weapons, as stated by the former First Minister, and with the fudge on this issue that the current First Minister has proposed and that is in the SNP’s White Paper on the matter.
I take this opportunity—again, I thank the hon. Lady for affording me it—to remind all hon. Members that, if we pay lip service to the deterrent and that is all we do, if we waiver in our total commitment to it and if we are no longer credible, it ceases to become a deterrent and, when it ceases to become a deterrent, we become a target.
Privileges Committee Special Report
Deidre Brock Excerpts(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Briefly, I commend the motion on this serious matter, the wording of which was put forward by the Committee of Privileges. As the special report sets out, the Committee is
“in practice the only mechanism…which the House can use to defend itself in the face of a Minister misleading it.”
Unfortunately, throughout the inquiry into Boris Johnson, the former Prime Minister and several of his close allies sought to discredit the Committee, the integrity of its members and the parliamentary process. Their actions did not affect the outcome of the inquiry—thank goodness—but that should not absolve those individuals of responsibility or scrutiny.
Senior politicians—one of them a Minister at the time, and others of them former Front Benchers—applied “unprecedented and co-ordinated pressure” on the Committee, as the report makes clear, and waged what can only be described as a campaign to disparage it. They took to Twitter, newspapers, radio and even their own TV shows to make their claims, and referred to the inquiry as a “witch hunt” and a “kangaroo court” not befitting a “banana republic”. Those are among the jaw-dropping comments listed in the annex to the report. Conservative Members might need to read the annex, because they do not seem familiar with some of those comments.
It is customary for the Privileges Committee to be chaired by a member of the Opposition, yet there were sustained efforts to undermine and question the impartiality of the Chair, who was appointed to the Committee by unanimous decision of the House. The pressure exerted on Conservative Committee members, who made up a majority of the Committee, was clearly intended to force their withdrawal or impede the conclusion of the inquiry.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
The hon. Lady said it was customary for the Privileges Committee to be chaired by a member of the Opposition; actually, under Standing Orders, it has to be chaired by a member of the Opposition.
Deidre Brock
I thank the right hon. Lady for that clarification. I agree with her; she is quite right. The report also emphasises the significant personal impact that the campaign had on Members who were simply trying to perform their duties. They should not have been subject to such treatment.
It has hitherto been understood that Members should refrain from interfering in the work of the Privileges Committee, but that was ignored. Explicit protections are already in place for House of Commons standards cases involving alleged breaches of the code of conduct for MPs. When it comes to those cases, Members are prohibited from lobbying the Committee on Standards, the Independent Expert Panel or the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. It seems evident from this episode that those safeguards should also be applied to privileges cases.
The claims that the changes would restrict Members’ free speech are misguided. Members already have the right to object, to vote and to raise conflicts of interest regarding Committee appointments, as well as to vote against or amend referral motions, to provide evidence, to comment on procedure and to publicly discuss the final report after its publication.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
On the issue of being able to comment, can the hon. Lady define for me what “impugn the integrity” means for what people can say?
Deidre Brock
Forgive me, but the hon. Gentleman is going to have to elaborate a little further.
Richard Fuller
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will repeat the question. The hon. Lady was talking about the ability to comment, and one of the report’s key recommendations is that Members should not
“impugn the integrity of that Committee”.
Can she define for me what constitutes impugning integrity?
Deidre Brock
For goodness’ sake, that is a ridiculous question. It is clear from the annex attached to this report what impugning the integrity of the Committee means and what it does not. The comments in the report were jaw-dropping. I was shocked that anybody could make such claims when the Committee was in the process of its inquiry.
Getting on to that very point, there are appropriate channels to make our views heard during investigations, and the thing is—Members on the Government Benches do not appear to appreciate this—that this whole saga has further undermined the public’s faith and trust in not just this place, but in democracy itself. It can only fuel the existing sense of cynicism and frustration that we see across society in the UK today.
Boris Johnson was shown to have lied to the House and to the Privileges Committee, yet some of his most ardent supporters sought to interfere, undermine and attack the integrity of the Committee and its work. It seems appropriate, as I said, to consider whether such campaigns should result in disciplinary action. It is no wonder the public are scunnered with it. This whole saga has undermined people’s faith in this place and in democracy itself. The Prime Minister and most of his Cabinet were not here for the vote on the Committee’s findings on Johnson, and the Government Front Bench is sadly looking pretty empty again today. As one of my constituents put it to me in a surgery just days ago, “If those at the very top won’t bother observing or even showing their support for the rules, why should we?”. That leads us to a dangerous place indeed. We support the motion.
Proxy Voting
Deidre Brock Excerpts(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I thank the Leader of the House for moving the motion this evening. We in the SNP support the recommendations made in the Procedure Committee’s report and in its subsequent letter to the Leader of the House. We thank the members of the Committee for their efforts.
Proxy voting works. We saw that with the measures put in place during the pandemic and with the current pilot for Members suffering from injury or long-term ill health. It has enabled several Members to fulfil their responsibility to vote in Divisions when they would otherwise have been unable to do so.
I, too, pay special tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Amy Callaghan), and I thank the shadow Leader of the House for her acknowledgement of my hon. Friend’s efforts. She has been a trailblazer on this issue in many ways, bravely and eloquently drawing on her own very challenging experiences of serious illness to advocate for these reforms and for many other necessary improvements to accessibility in this place.
Proxy voting is a simple, common-sense and reasonable adjustment that allows Members to fulfil their obligations to their constituents without putting their health at risk. It is about ensuring equality and inclusivity for elected Members, and enabling them to do their jobs. The introduction of this reform on a permanent basis is long overdue, but very welcome.
House of Commons Commission (External Member)
Deidre Brock Excerpts(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I offer my congratulations to Catherine Ward on her appointment, assuming she is confirmed tonight. I warmly welcome her to the role as an external member of the House of Commons Commission. Her career background is tremendously impressive, with experience in the creative, education and healthcare sectors, among others. She has a wealth of knowledge and expertise acquired from a diverse range of roles, so I am confident she will bring a unique perspective to the Commission. She also brings intimate knowledge of this place from her role as a non-executive director of human resources policy and the strategic support group at the House of Commons, and I am sure the other commissioners are looking forward to working with her.
Question put and agreed to.
Business of the House
Deidre Brock Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
“Eternal Father, Strong to Save”, written for those in peril on the sea, is one of my very favourite hymns. It calls to mind the dangers that those brave enough to venture forth on sometimes stormy waters can face, whether those who travel down to its very depths or those risking their lives to escape war, persecution, famine or drought. Our hearts go out to all those currently lost and their loved ones, but the contrast in approach to recent events is telling. Where were the same levels of energy and resources to help the 750 poor souls crowded on board the vessel that capsized near Greece last week, in what will surely rank among the worst catastrophes in the Mediterranean in recent history?
It is a source of tragic irony that this year’s Refugee Week immediately follows that horrific incident. It also reflects a growing global humanitarian crisis on which this UK Government continue to turn their back. Seeking asylum is a human right, but rather than providing safe and legal routes, this Government choose to abdicate their responsibilities under international human rights law, from the Afghan resettlement scheme to Rwanda deportations and the refugee ban Bill. While Ministers continue to reflexively parrot “stop the boats” to questions on the topic, this week the UK’s leading medical bodies called for an urgent meeting with the Government, warning that plans to detain children indefinitely under the Illegal Migration Bill pose the risk of “unimaginable levels of harm” to their physical and mental health. Can we have a debate on the long-term health impact of that legislation and Government’s immigration and asylum policies?
Scotland stands ready to accommodate refugees and asylum seekers. Glasgow remains the local authority with the most dispersed asylum seekers in the UK, while Scotland has taken in 20% of all Ukrainian arrivals under the sponsorship schemes. If the Home Office really wanted to assist, rather than enriching Tory-appointed private contractors it could provide the necessary funding for local authorities across the UK. Today, over 110 million people have been forcibly displaced from their homes. That figure will only grow in the coming years. [Interruption.] Can the Leader of the House and her fellow advocates of global Britain tell us how they intend to step up to meet the challenge?
Mr Speaker
The hon. Lady is shouting loudly because I am coughing! This is not a good way to do things. We have to get a grip of time, because a lot of Members want to get in, and we must look after them.
Privilege: Conduct of Right Hon. Boris Johnson
Deidre Brock Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
We have always had a great deal of concern about the conduct of this Tory Government, who misled us through the pandemic from beginning to end, and at times it terrified us. We saw the photos of Boris Johnson surrounded by empty champagne bottles; we heard how the former Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), got his pandemic strategy from the “Contagion” movie; and we saw how the former Chancellor and current Prime Minister was on the receiving end of a fixed penalty fine over partygate. In fact, 100 of these fines were issued to officials and politicians at the heart of government, and investigations are not over yet. This was a culture of not just bending the rules, but shattering them. Yet, right until this moment, Members such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) were being thrown out of this place for pointing out that Boris Johnson lied and lied and lied about these incidents, all while the liar himself was protected by procedure.
The fifth report of the Privileges Committee is forensic in its approach and has revealed a culture of entitlement that has eroded the very foundations of that which passes for democracy at Westminster. It says:
“The overall thrust of Mr Johnson’s evidence to the Committee has been to downplay the significance and narrow the scope of the assertions he made to the House.”
It uses words such as “disingenuous” and “misleading”. It talks of Mr Johnson using language that was
“contrary to common English usage”
and of his
“advancing an unsustainable interpretation of Guidance”.
The report’s tone is flat, completely professional and absolutely damning.
The report has also shed more light on behaviour that proves without doubt that it really was one rule for them, another rule for us. Since its publication, we have seen some clips that reveal the unbelievable arrogance of those posing for photos and being filmed dancing at Tory HQ, apparently on a day when it was announced that London was entering tier 3 restrictions—and some of those taking part have then been rewarded with honours. People died alone while No. 10 officials had Friday wine time. The reason these people spent their final moments alone was that they were following the orders of a Government who disregarded their own policies so blatantly, with suitcases filled with booze and with office karaoke machines being ignored as they were wheeled in. And then Boris Johnson lied about it.
Paragraph 210 of the report is scathing. It states:
“There is no precedent for a Prime Minister having been found to have deliberately misled the House. He misled the House on an issue of the greatest importance to the House and to the public, and did so repeatedly.”
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the outpouring we have seen on social media of people sharing the pain of instances of a daughter lost to suicide, or of funerals of those close to them that they could not attend, shows that these scars are not going to disappear in people’s lifetimes? So is the demand to move on and the trivialisation of this matter not just the final insult?
Deidre Brock
I completely agree. The stories I have seen on social media and heard from constituents are utterly heartbreaking. The report vindicates every single person who made immense personal sacrifices during the pandemic. I am extremely grateful to the Committee and its officers for their work, particularly in such a hostile environment of relentless intimidation and insults.
One would like to think the Committee’s recommendations will ensure that such a monumental betrayal of public trust will never be undertaken so lightly again. However, Boris Johnson and his allies’ continued refusal to accept the findings and recommendations of the report is a further affront to the democratic process. In fact, the former Prime Minister’s relationship with the truth is so distorted, I am not sure whether he comprehends the depths of his own deception. Either that, or he still thinks he can play us all for fools. In that, at least, I would say the game is up.
We cannot risk reinforcing the message that those in positions of power can deny, dismiss and evade the consequences of their own actions. Instead, the House must now work to regain at least some of the trust it has already lost and safeguard the democratic process. To do otherwise would set an extremely dangerous precedent.
The report comes alongside the news that the Scottish Government have published plans for an independent Scotland to have a codified constitution, written by the people, for the people, and, crucially, holding our representatives accountable to the people. Not only would that constitution guarantee our human rights and an NHS free at the point of need, it would ensure that no Scottish Parliament would ever take so much time, during a cost of living crisis, figuring out how to discipline out-of-control politicians who like to push flimsy Westminster conventions to the absolute limit. I note that over the weekend Mr Johnson may have tested that again, by again breaching the ministerial code with the announcement of his latest side job.
This mess is also about a party that ignored the obvious failings of a man because it thought he could win it power. I have read that many Members on the Government Benches plan to abstain, terrified of those among their constituents who are, unfortunately, still taken in by the clown prince, the former Prime Minister, playing the buffoon for them. He has, of course, jumped ship and escaped the censure of the House, but we need to turn our gaze on all the Members on the Government Benches who ignored his track record and indulged his behaviour and the obvious failings of the man, simply because they thought he could win them their seats.
Pete Wishart
My hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech, as always.
They knew exactly the character of that man. They cheered on his buffoonery. It was them that foisted him upon our nation, and it is going to be them who will have to be held responsible and accountable for all the Johnson mess that he has left behind. We have four by-elections coming up in the next few weeks—three of them because of Johnson’s legacy. What does she think their chances are in those by-elections?
Deidre Brock
I never like to guess anything, but I would suggest that given the behaviour we have seen in recent weeks, those chances look pretty slim.
At the very least, Government Members should show some remorse for that cynicism, accept the recommendations of the report and vote to approve them. If they do not, I hope their cowardly refusal will dog them for the rest of their political lives. If ever there was a moment for them to stand up and be counted, it is now.
However, it is too much to expect apologies from all those who defended Johnson and kept him in his place. Unbelievably, the Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Jack), continues to support him, claiming he was not as unpopular in Scotland as was thought. The month before Johnson resigned as Prime Minister last year, an Ipsos MORI poll found that 83% of respondents had a negative view of him. If the Secretary of State for Scotland thinks opinions of the man have got better in Scotland since then, he has another think coming.
The Secretary of State for Scotland also claims, astoundingly, that the decisions Johnson took for Scotland will
“serve Scotland very well for decades to come”.
What a statement, when we consider the disastrous impact of the Brexit that Johnson was instrumental in persuading people to support on individuals and organisations up and down Scotland. Then there is the inadequacy of a replacement for EU funding, Treasury funds being ransacked like a sweetie jar to reward MPs, the Internal Market Act 2020, and the constant interference in devolved responsibilities. We are seeing the consequences of that with the UK Government effectively having a veto over legislation passed by our democratically elected Parliament in Scotland. The Secretary of State for Scotland is right in one way: Johnson’s toxic legacy of the decisions made by his Government and imposed on the Scottish people will certainly be affecting them for years to come, given Labour’s refusal to ditch Brexit in any Government that comes after this one.
As we know, some Members will not even be attending today’s debate. I hear that the Prime Minister is swithering —perhaps it is all a little too close to home given his own fixed penalty fine. What a spineless dereliction of the responsibilities of his office if he does not show active support for the Committee’s recommendations. The Committee’s conclusions are that Johnson deliberately misled the House and the Committee, breached confidence, impugned the Committee thereby undermining the democratic process of the House, and was complicit in the campaign of abuse and attempted intimidation of the Committee.
What of the Prime Minister’s mantra of integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level? This House must not only endorse the report in full, but recover the legal fees wasted on Boris Johnson’s lies, rescind the honours he bestowed in disgrace, and prevent a single penny more of public money entering his pocket. We have suffered enough at his hands and at the hands of his Government. Boris Johnson lied to Parliament, deliberately misled the country and has shown no remorse for his behaviour. While time, money and energy have been spent on examining what was a self-evident truth a long time ago, the cost of living crisis continues to balloon and our constituents are suffering.
Is it not shameful and depressing, Mr Speaker, that it has taken this prolonged, detailed scrutiny by the Privileges Committee to force some Conservative Members finally to admit to Johnson’s faults? It is shocking that, even now, some of them are refusing to accept its conclusions. Scotland deserves better than this corrupt, outdated Westminster system that allows the likes of Johnson to rise to the top. I fear that even these recommendations from the Committee, decisive as they are, will not prevent the same from happening in the future. I worry that some Conservative MPs think that, by accepting the recommendations and taking some medicine, this will all go away again, and that cannot be allowed to happen.
In conclusion, yes, it is clearly beyond time that Westminster abandons the damaging traditions that protect those who lie in Parliament, reforms protocol, and enables MPs to accurately hold Ministers to account. All Members of the House should of course vote for the Committee’s recommendations. The question is this: is anything going to change—really change—on the back of the report. If Parliament fails to reform after this most egregious and obvious case, it will just prove that Westminster is incapable of even the most basic scrutiny of power, reform, or improvement. Are we confident that standards here will keep other Ministers to account when they stand up at the Dispatch Box? I am afraid that I am not.
Business of the House
Deidre Brock Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
There is no shortage of things we can talk about this week. The UK still has the highest core inflation in the G7, with the continuing cost of living crisis and warnings of further rate rise misery for mortgage owners. There were some—putting it mildly—questionable choices on a former PM’s honours list, a scathing report out yesterday from the Scottish Government demonstrating exactly how this UK Government are attempting to impose direct rule on Scotland by stealth and, indeed, an utterly damning Privileges Committee report, just released, with its conclusions on that former PM’s behaviour, although we can of course expect that one to be very thoroughly debated on Monday. Our constituents, who suffered so much throughout the pandemic, deserve nothing less.
However, I want to focus on this occasion on something I am sure the Leader of the House will have been as horrified to hear about as I was. It is the report on Sky News that serving personnel at RAF bases in England are having to use food banks to feed their families. We all know that the Leader of the House has a real interest in defence matters—until her demotion by the previous Prime Minister, she was a Defence Minister herself—and next week is of course Armed Forces Week, with many events planned for this place, so it can only be a matter of profound shame for her that service personnel are having to go days without food to make sure their own children are fed. Living hand to mouth is frankly unimaginable at a time of war in Europe. How are her Government going to back those “grafters”, as she would put it? The Tories claim to be the party of defence, but with the continuing scandal of substandard personnel accommodation, endless Tory defence cuts and the billions wasted on defence procurement fiascos—and now personnel being forced to use food banks—is it not more than time for a serious debate on the numerous Tory defence failures? Does she agree, and would she support that?
Once again, I ask the Leader of the House, with respect, not to reach for the inaccurate, out-of-date video script, written by her own army of special advisers, attacking the elected Government of Scotland. Business questions are about the conduct of her Government, and I would argue that this question is too serious for this now obvious avoidance technique. Would she be so helpful as to answer those questions?
Penny Mordaunt
Let me first say that I always answer the hon. Lady’s questions. Indeed, I am going to lavish praise on the Scottish Government this week, because their First Minister has achieved a landmark achievement —credit where credit is due—in that he has the honour of being the first SNP First Minister in its entire history not to have been arrested, which is quite an achievement.
I shall not go over what I previously said to the shadow Leader of the House on the economy and on the Privileges Committee, but let me be specific about the points the hon. Lady raises. She is right that as Defence Secretary, I—in my 85 days in office—gave all of our armed forces a pay rise, and made sure that no one who ever serves in our armed forces will earn less than the national living wage. I think that is an important principle. The hon. Lady will know that we care deeply about the welfare of our armed forces, and indeed about their financial resilience. That is why this Government are compensating armed forces personnel in Scotland for the additional tax that they have to pay under the Scottish Government. We think that is an important point.
The hon. Lady, again—this is a regular theme—criticises the UK Government for our obligations under the law, our overreach on devolution, as she sees it, and our democratic obligations. I gently point out that she might have more credibility on such matters if the Scottish Government had not been found repeatedly to have been in breach of the Scotland Act 1998. Ministers have been touring the world, at Scottish taxpayers’ expense, undermining our Union, undermining our armed forces and the nuclear deterrent, and undermining referendums and democracy. In doing so, they are undermining the Scottish Government’s credibility, and the arguments they are trying to mount against us. I ask the hon. Lady to reflect on that.
Members of Parliament: Risk-based Exclusion
Deidre Brock Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I will start by repeating the words of the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House: the Commission is here to listen, and we will take note of Members’ comments today in further consideration of this issue.
I will try not to repeat the many excellent points that the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House made, but it seems to me that Westminster is very often accused of being an institution stuck in its ways and unable or unwilling to change. The excellent Clerks working on these proposals requested information from Parliaments and legislative Assemblies whose procedures share a common history with the UK, and although it is true that there was a limited number of comparisons, that should not in any way be seen as an argument for not reforming our procedures. Yes, this is a difficult and delicate area, as has been said, but given that some Members of this place like to refer to it as the mother of all Parliaments, should that not be seen as a challenge to go further and lead by establishing best practice, rather than used as an excuse not to change?
Of course, as has been mentioned, the reforms are not just about restoring the image of this Parliament and the public’s faith in democracy, but about real and tangible efforts to protect staff, and indeed other Members, through mitigation measures. In the development of the proposals, there has been a lot of discussion and consultation with a number of organisations and individuals. There has been recognition of the need to give greater priority to protecting staff and the wider parliamentary community from the risk of potential harm while also ensuring continued representation for constituents and fairness to the individual under investigation. The Commission felt that the constituents of an excluded Member should not be deprived of their right to representation in Parliament, so progress in the safeguarding of our staff should go hand in hand with looking again at forms of remote participation.
We all have a duty of care towards staff. Parliament cannot claim adherence to that principle if it fails to reform when so many people working in this place feel concern. They feel that this environment has to change, and we in the Commission have to demonstrate that we hear them. It is crucial that we provide a safe and supportive environment for individuals to voice their concerns, and that there are clear protocols to follow when reporting and taking action. We must also acknowledge the unique environment that we work in: this is not a shared office floor or open office space but a complex host to restaurants, bars and cafés where MPs and staff socialise freely. It is vital that we all feel safe here.
Sir Christopher Chope
Does the hon. Lady think it essential that all people who work in this building should be subject to disclosure and barring?
Sir Christopher Chope
Should all people who work in this building be subject to disclosure and barring checks?
Deidre Brock
I think that this place must recognise that it is the 21st century and that that protections have to be offered to staff. Staff are expressing these concerns to us. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is familiar with the concerns that have been raised, but we have certainly heard them loud and clear and we are attempting to respond to them. I think that that is an important principle that we should be supporting. We have not finalised what the final report will look like or what the decisions of the House of Commons Commission will be—that is what today is all about. The hon. Gentleman has had his say; I am trying to make my points and I will continue.
It is worth noting that testimony given to the GMB union’s parliamentary staff branch said that while many MPs were wonderful, others could mistreat their staff with relative impunity. The circumstances in which MPs can be excluded under the proposals are not limited to actions against staff, of course, but we must remember that this is an attempt to directly help to keep staff, and indeed other Members of Parliament, safe.
There are other points that I would have made, but they have already been admirably expressed by the Leader of the House and shadow Leader of the House. In closing, I want to thank very much the Clerks who worked on the report. They worked very hard on the proposals, with great sensitivity. I thank the members of the Commission, of course, the contributors to the consultation and the many other staff who contributed.
I stress again that we in the Commission are here to listen. We are keen to hear the views of other Members on the proposals. It might be that some finer details change in the future, but I hope that everyone in this House recognises that the Commission is attempting to respond to the genuine concerns raised by staff and, indeed, by many members of the public.
Business of the House
Deidre Brock Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
It was announced in the Scottish Parliament yesterday that Scotland’s deposit return scheme has had to be delayed until October 2025. That is the latest estimate of how long it will take England to finally catch up with the devolved Governments and introduce its own scheme. Some would call this dithering and delaying, and I know that that is what a great many environmental organisations think.
Keep Britain Tidy estimates that every day of delay leaves an extra 140,000 cans and bottles littering Scotland. This delay, forced on Scotland by the UK Government’s refusal to grant an exemption under the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, means that tens of millions of those items will be littering Scotland’s lands and seas for many months to come. After several years of discussion with Scottish businesses and, indeed, nearly two years of discussion with the UK Government and officials under the common framework set-up, and with no justification offered for the refusal to agree to the exemption, the Secretary of State for Scotland swooped in at the last minute, like some sort of toff Tarzan, to squash the scheme—many examples of which can be seen across the world—and demanded that glass be removed from it, thus forcing Scotland to wait for England’s scheme to become operational. Given that no regulations outlining how England’s scheme will work have yet been laid, the estimated delivery date of 1 October 2025 in England looks optimistic, to put it kindly.
Once upon a time, we supposedly had the most powerful devolved Parliament in the world. Now we are not permitted to run a packaging recycling scheme. Will the Leader of the House perhaps permit a debate on devolution and its future, given that her Government apparently intend to continue to intervene and claw back to the centre powers that the people of Scotland wanted to be devolved to their Parliament? Can devolution now work only if the devolved and Westminster Governments are in complete agreement? Is that really what the people of Scotland voted for in 1997 in their devolution referendum? If the UK Government are prepared to intervene on a packaging recycling scheme, what confidence can we have that any of our Parliament’s policies will not be struck down in a similar way?
I have further questions. Why were so many MSPs and MPs in the right hon. Lady’s party enthusiastic about including glass in deposit return schemes previously —commitments to that were even included in the manifesto on which she stood—and what exactly has changed their minds? Acting on the advice of which bodies or individuals did the Secretary of State intervene, and with which environmental organisations did he discuss this before he intervened? Why has the inclusion of glass apparently been permitted for the scheme in Wales? I would be very grateful for some answers.
Penny Mordaunt
I shall be brief. The Secretary of State for Scotland is having these discussions with the Scottish Government first because he is standing up for the interests of Scottish business, which the SNP is not, and secondly because the scheme devised in Scotland will actually reduce recycling rates. As the hon. Lady will know, the delay in the scheme has been caused by the Scottish Government’s not engaging with the UK-wide scheme that would need to be devised because of the UK internal market. She need only go and listen to businesses in her constituency to understand their concerns about the Scottish scheme, and to hear their calls for compensation from the Scottish Government because this issue has been handled so poorly, and because of the investments they have had to make only to have the rug pulled from under their feet.
I also noted this week that the Auditor General for Scotland has revealed that the auditors are unable to account for billions of pounds’ worth of covid-19 business support grants that were handed to the Scottish Government, because of gaps in data. The SNP has made it impossible for the auditors to understand fully how £4.4 billion in grants and business reliefs were distributed between March 2020 and October 2021. I say thank heavens for the Secretary of State for Scotland, because he is standing up for the interests of the businesses and residents of Scotland.