Code of Conduct and Modernisation Committee

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

I thank my hon. Friend, who has done much good work in this space over the years. The Government’s ethics and integrity commission will focus more on Government members, Ministers, civil servants and others, whereas the work of the Modernisation Committee will focus particularly on the House of Commons. There may be a relationship at times, but they will have a different remit and scope. I hope that answers my hon. Friend’s question satisfactorily.

As the proposed Chair of the Committee, I reassure the House that my door will always be open to Members and staff across the House. I see it more as a task and finish Committee—that was a good comment that the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) made to me the other day—that will take a strategic look at recommendations from other bodies and Committees, but not duplicate their work.

I note amendment (a), tabled by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), which is about the engagement of smaller parties and their role on the Modernisation Committee. I hope that I have gone some way towards providing reassurance on aspects of that issue. I want to be clear that I want Members across the House to be heard, but the Committee also needs to be an effective body that delivers change. If the Committee is to work swiftly and generate momentum behind proposals for reform, it needs to be of an appropriate size. If each party were represented, as the hon. Member’s amendment requires, the Committee would have to grow considerably. That would not be proportionate with other Committees of the House, which I do not think is reasonable.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Given the likely breakdown, does the Leader of the House understand that only three parties will be represented on the Committee? It would be possible to flex that slightly, and have voices from more than just three parties on the Committee, while still keeping it relatively small.

[Lucy Powell]

I understand the hon. Member’s concern. It is an unfortunate case of the mathematics that apply across all Select Committees. On other occasions, in past Parliaments, her party has benefited from the formulas that are used. Beyond formal membership, however, I reassure the House that I want to commit to regular and meaningful engagement with any and all parties represented in this House and with Members who want to contribute.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Congratulations to you and your colleagues on your new roles, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish you the very best of luck in dealing with all of us in our time here.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Sureena Brackenridge) on her excellent maiden speech, and particularly on her passionate message to her students, who I am sure miss her very much too.

I want to speak about the motions on the Order Paper. There is a huge amount I could say about the ways in which this House should be modernised; I have been speaking and thinking about it for years. I am probably one of the few Members who has spent many hours poring over the Standing Orders, considering how they could best be changed to improve this House. Not many people are quite as geeky about that as I am. However, I will not focus on that. Instead, I want to talk about the motions in front of us.

Motion 4 has been badged as a “second jobs” motion. It relates to paid employment, but it does not include the paid employment that constituents think of when they think about second jobs. They think about the Members appearing on GB News weekly, but that is not covered in the proposed changes. As the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) said, constituents think about the people doing work for a financial institution, but again, that is not included in the motion.

The changes to the rules are good, but the motion should not be badged as relating to second jobs. What it does is increase the transparency and restrictions on Members of Parliament who seek to use their privileged knowledge to get paid employment. We all have knowledge of parliamentary procedure because we are MPs, and the motion prevents us from using that to get money. That is a laudable aim, but it is not the change that the House needs in order to fix the issue of second jobs. I will support the Government’s changes, but they need to go far further.

I have several concerns about the motion on the Modernisation Committee, beginning with its incredibly woolly remit, which is:

“to consider reforms to House of Commons procedures, standards, and working practices; and to make recommendations thereon”.

Its remit is not to modernise the House of Commons, which I would have been more supportive of. If we gave the Committee an understanding that it needs to drag the House into the 20th century—never mind the 21st century —by increasing the amount of modern working practices and the ability of MPs to represent their constituents in Parliament, that would be helpful, but the remit is not there. It is just “to make recommendations”, so I am disappointed that the Government have not gone further on that.

The issue of the make-up of Members is significant. It is not just about the smaller parties that are not the first, second or third in the House wanting to have a voice, but about the way that the Government have chosen to arrange the Committee and the number of Members that they have chosen to have on it, which mean they have guaranteed that it cannot have a Northern Ireland member. The membership will be divvied up between the Labour party, the Conservatives and the Lib Dems, so there will never be a DUP Member or anyone making decisions on the Committee who is struggling with the geographical challenges that are unique to Northern Ireland Members.

The SNP would have liked a seat on the Committee. I am pleased to hear what the Leader of the House said about trying to ensure that all voices are heard, but like the shadow Leader of the House, I would like to have had more conversations with her beforehand about it, so that we could have suggested our views on the best way for our voices to be heard. If she really wants to work collegiately, we are happy to do that, but unfortunately this has not got off to the most collegiate start. The Government should consider the best way to do that, because I am concerned about the geographical issue.

The Leader of the House spoke specifically about the experience of all Members in this place. I would like the Committee to consider hearing from former MPs who also have significant experiences. It may be that we do not currently have MPs with certain disabilities, or who have experienced the proxy voting system, but we did formerly.

During covid, I did a huge amount of work with the Procedure Committee, which met online almost every day in the early days of lockdown. We considered every possible way to make the House covid compliant and made a huge number of recommendations to the Government, some of which could be incorporated to make the House more modern as time goes on.

I am pleased that the Leader of the House committed that the Modernisation Committee will take evidence from those Committees, but there will still be no SNP voice to feed into the Modernisation Committee, because we are unlikely to get a seat on any of those Committees. It is all well and good taking advice from those places, but the smaller parties are again being restricted in how they are being heard. I am happy to support the creation of the Committee, but I would appreciate it if the Leader of the House tried to work in a more collegiate way than she has so far.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call Neil Duncan-Jordan to make his maiden speech.

Business of the House

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Thursday 23rd May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

I will ensure that all those involved in wash-up have heard what my hon. Friend has said about his private Member’s Bill, which I know is popular and well supported. I thank him for all his work on it.

With regards to the Mayor of London’s choice to purchase buses from China, I think it is consistent with Labour’s policy towards green energy, the main beneficiary of which does appear to be China.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the other Madam Deputy Speaker, the right hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Dame Rosie Winterton). You have both generally dealt with my requests with pragmatism and kindness, unless I deserved otherwise.

The Media Bill was well supported across the House. It is not perfect, but a huge number of people did a huge amount of work to get it through. The Government’s timetable for Committee stage was incredibly tight, and Committee members pooled together and worked incredibly hard on it. Today, we have had a letter from those in charge of Channel 4, BBC, STV and MG Alba, among others, making clear the importance of the Bill. The last media Bill was passed when teletext was still cutting edge, so we really need this Media Bill to go through. In her discussions about wash-up, I urge the Leader of the House to stress the Bill’s importance for media organisations, particularly those in broadcast media. I believe that there is significant cross-party support for the Bill, particularly as it relates to broadcasting and on-demand radio services.

[Penny Mordaunt]

It is a very important Bill, and I know that a huge amount of work has been done by Members on both sides of the House. It was awaiting its Third Reading in the House of Lords. I cannot tell the hon. Lady at the moment, but I hope that the House will soon be updated about all the Bills that can be brought forward.

Business of the House

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Thursday 2nd May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that very good suggestion, and I am sure that such a debate would be well attended. Having headed up UK-wide organisations, particularly in healthcare, I know that one strength of having different systems of governance to reflect different parts of the UK is that they work together and learn from each other—how our four chief medical officers work together, for example. Devolution was envisaged as four nations working together for the common good of their citizens, but we know that is not the SNP’s interpretation of that opportunity. That would be a good debate and I encourage him to apply for it —and if he does, I will attend.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Outside of London, Aberdeen has the highest proportion of non-UK-born citizens anywhere on this island. Today the Home Office looks set to remove and detain someone who fled persecution in their home country and has begun to build a life in Aberdeen. Right now, the people of my city are out on the streets making it clear that refugees are welcome in Aberdeen. What can I do to ensure that if someone is detained and removed from Aberdeen, they are given basic human necessities such as water on the hours-long journey away from our city, and to ensure that the Home Office updates the MP and answers their questions in relation to that detention?

[Penny Mordaunt]

The hon. Lady will know that the Home Office will always talk to Members of this House about constituency cases of whatever nature, but it is clear that, given our finite resource, we can honour our obligations to those seeking asylum here only if our asylum system can deal with the volume of people coming in. We should use those finite resources in a way that helps people, but we can also choose which individuals we want to help and ensure that people who do not have leave to remain in this country do not remain here. That is what this democratic Parliament has decided to do, because the British people wish us to do it. She ought to reflect on that.

Business of the House

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Thursday 27th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

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

[Penny Mordaunt]

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

Business of the House

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Thursday 22nd September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

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

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

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

[Penny Mordaunt]

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

Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Tuesday 12th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mark Spencer]

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

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

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

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

[Mark Spencer]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

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

[Kirsty Blackman]

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

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

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

[Kirsty Blackman]

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

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

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kirsty Blackman]

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

[Mark Tami]

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

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

Business of the House

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Thursday 31st March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mark Spencer]

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

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

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

[Mark Spencer]

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

Business of the House

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Thursday 24th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mark Spencer]

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

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

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

[Mark Spencer]

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

Business of the House

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Thursday 23rd September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

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

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

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

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

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

Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

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

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