Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests Resignation

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 16th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Michael Ellis)]

Let me start by thanking Lord Geidt for his work as Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests and, indeed, for his years of public service before he took up that role. I hold him in the highest regard. He has been honoured multiple times and is, of course, an example of excellence and service in public life. I thank all Members for their work in respect of this matter, but I think all Members of this House will recognise that Lord Geidt has demonstrated diligence and thoughtfulness in the way he has discharged his role over the past year. We have benefited hugely from his service.

The Prime Minister will be issuing a letter in relation to Lord Geidt’s announcement. Both Lord Geidt’s letter and the Prime Minister’s reply will be deposited in the House shortly—as soon as my office has those letters, Mr Speaker, they will be placed in the Library. The Government are of course particularly disappointed that Lord Geidt has taken this decision, because only very recently—as the House knows from the debate last week—significant changes were made to the role and status of Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests. As I set out to the House last week, the changes represent the most substantial strengthening of the role, office and remit of independent adviser since the post was created in 2006.

Let me set out briefly the reforms to the role that the Prime Minister has introduced. First, the independent adviser has a new ability, which Lord Geidt and his predecessors did not previously have, to initiate investigations in relation to allegations where there has been a breach of the “Ministerial Code”. This is a significant change. Previously, as the House knows, as an adviser, he and his predecessors were not permitted to do this. The adviser will still need the consent of the Prime Minister of the day to start an investigation, but, as I made it very clear last week, this consent will normally be given.

The “Ministerial Code” now includes new detail on proportionate sanctions for a breach of the code. Previously, there was no proportionality in those sanctions, and even the smallest of technical breaches by a Minister in place might have resulted in an enforced resignation. Now there is a proportionate range of options, and that was exactly as recommended by the Committee on Standards in Public Life.

In future, the independent adviser will be consulted about the revisions to the code, as recommended by the Committee on Standards in Public Life. The “Ministerial Code” now includes more specific references to the role of the independent adviser and more specific references to the duty on Ministers to provide the independent adviser with all information reasonably necessary for the discharge of the role.

In conclusion, as Lord Geidt himself has made clear, the new arrangements are workable, and he noted the increased transparency that they bring. The Government will of course now move to make new arrangements and we look forward to working within the strengthened system that I have described.

[Mr Speaker]

I say to the Minister, for whom I have the greatest respect, that he knows that his answer should have been three minutes. I am sure that the team here could have managed to get that speech down to three minutes. I say to Members on both sides of the House, please, do not take advantage, as there is a lot of other business to follow.

[Fleur Anderson]

I welcome the fact that this letter will be published. It has taken my asking an urgent question to get that, so I am very glad that I was able to do so. Clearly, the new arrangements for the independent adviser are not workable, which is why Lord Geidt has had to resign.

To lose one ethics adviser is an embarrassment, but to lose two in two years, just days after the Prime Minister’s own anti-corruption Tsar walked out on him, means that it is becoming a bit of a pattern—a pattern of degrading the principles of our democracy. The Prime Minister has now driven both of his hand-picked ethics advisers to resign in despair in two years. It is a badge of shame for this Government.

In an unprecedented move, the Cabinet Office had failed to publish Lord Geidt’s resignation letter and it has taken this urgent question to get it. Lord Geidt described resignation as a “last resort” to send a critical signal to the public domain. Can the Minister confirm whether ongoing investigations launched by Lord Geidt will now be completed? Will that be in the Prime Minister’s letter? For example, how will the shameful allegations of Islamophobia experienced by the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) now be investigated?

Yesterday, No. 10 stated that Lord Geidt had been asked to give advice on a commercially sensitive matter in the national interest. What is that? Can the Minister confirm whether that relates to a direct or an indirect financial interest of the Prime Minister, a family member, a friend or a donor? When will a replacement be appointed? Can the Minister assure us that there will not be another five-month gap? I know that it will be hard to recruit somebody for this position, because it has clearly been shown to be unworkable. Lord Geidt’s predecessor walked out following the publication of his findings on the Home Secretary’s bullying, which was excused by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has ridden roughshod over the rules.

In conclusion, what comes next? This vacancy must be filled urgently, but the role must be reformed, as the Committee on Standards in Public Life has concluded. Honesty matters. Integrity matters. Decency matters. I hope the Minister will do the right thing and come clean about this resignation.

[Mr Speaker]

When the Minister is ready.

[Michael Ellis]

indicated assent.

[Mr Speaker]

Well, you need to come to the Dispatch Box. It might be easier if you stand up.

[Michael Ellis]

Let me briefly answer the hon. Lady. I cannot speak to other investigations that may or may not have been in progress, but we will find about them in due course. That speaks for itself. As for other sensitive matters, it is obviously not appropriate to dwell on those. What is clear though is that the letters will speak for themselves. I think the hon. Lady will wish to wait for those.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, William Wragg.

[Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)]

I will channel my rare inner Lady Bracknell and say that for the Prime Minister to lose one adviser on Ministers’ interests may be regarded as misfortune, but to lose two looks like carelessness—I hope my right hon. and learned Friend will take that in the spirit it is meant. I thank Lord Geidt for appearing before our Committee on Tuesday, where I think he did his best—with what he would work with, I think was one thing he said, but he did his best none the less. I am very sad that he felt the need to resign, and I look forward to reading his letter and the reply from the Prime Minister. Can the Minister give the House some reassurance on this particular point? There was a five-month vacancy in the role upon the resignation of the previous independent adviser. How much more quickly will that be filled this time?

[Michael Ellis]

I am sure my hon. Friend will agree with me that it is important to ensure that whoever holds that role is not under constant political pressure to attack the Prime Minister for party political reasons and that, if they do not do so, they are not accused of being a lackey or a patsy. That is not something our independent advisers on Ministers’ interests deserve. We want the best public servants in our public life. We have had one in Lord Geidt, and we will work further in due course, but I know my hon. Friend will agree that it is in the public interest that party politics is not allowed to put pressure where it does not belong.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to SNP spokesperson Brendan O’Hara.

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

Another day, another scandal, another humiliation for the Prime Minister as another sleaze adviser quits. Let us not forget that when Lord Geidt took this job on 16 months ago he was the personal appointment of the Prime Minister, and we were assured that his credentials were absolutely impeccable. Lord Geidt said that if he were to resign it would be a last resort, and that he would use that resignation to send a critical signal into the public domain. We need to know what critical signal he was sending out last night. As yet, we do not have details of his resignation letter. We could speculate—could it be lawbreaking? PPE contracts? Breach of international law? I am pleased that the Minister is publishing the correspondence in full, but will he define “shortly”, as opposed to immediately, and will he confirm that all the correspondence will be published in full when it is published?

[Brendan O'Hara]

No, I don’t! That is shameful nonsense!

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I call Sheryll Murray.

[Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have a job to do, and that our time is best spent getting on with the job and delivering on the promises we made to the British people and voters in 2019?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) on securing this urgent question, but it is a bit of a shame that it is not on something our constituents care about. I do not know who Lord Geidt is—I bet half of the Opposition do not know who Lord Geidt is. If you want to get rid of the Prime Minister, you lot sitting there, move—[Interruption.] Not you, Mr Speaker; I know you do not want to get rid of the Prime Minister. I would never suggest that.

[Mr Speaker]

You are not drawing me into the political mix as supporting yes or no.

[Mr Bone]

Sorry, Mr Speaker. I got carried away. Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition know that if things are as bad as they say they are, the way to get rid of the Prime Minister and this Government is to have a vote of no confidence in the Government. The loyal Opposition have not been willing to do that. I think my constituents will draw their own conclusions about that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Alok Sharma]

My hon. Friend makes the same point that this is about a managed transition. We want to ensure that we decarbonise the electricity system by 2035. Hon. Members will know that the energy security strategy is all about transitioning to a clean energy future with a big push on renewables, nuclear and hydrogen.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the shadow COP26 President.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

It has been reported that the COP26 President is in the running to become the executive secretary of climate at the UN. I wish him well, because he would do an excellent job in that post. Part of the reason he won respect at COP26 was for his commitment to phase out fossil fuel subsidies, yet here at home the Chancellor has created a massive loophole in the windfall tax to give away at least £4 billion of public money in new incentives for new oil and gas projects. Can the COP26 President tell us whether he was consulted on that plan? How much does he estimate that it will drive up emissions? Is it not totally at odds with the agreement on fossil fuels that he worked so hard to secure in Glasgow?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alok Sharma]

In fact, there are many businesses, both large and small, that are committing to cut emissions, because they have understood that it is good for their bottom line and actually gives them a competitive advantage with clients and customers. I refer my hon. Friend to the UK business climate hub, which is championed by the Government and climate groups. Over 3,000 UK small and medium-sized enterprises have already signed up. I am sure that, if small businesses in Bracknell look at the website, they will understand the positive impact of making a climate commitment.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

The COP26 President will be aware of concerns raised about aspects of biomass, so how does he intend to ensure that carbon emissions from this sector and businesses such as wood-burning power stations are reflected in the reformed UK emissions trading system? How does he think the COP commitment to protect the world’s forests aligns with existing UK Government policies for burning imported wood and the considerable UK Government subsidies given to this industry?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alok Sharma]

We are working very closely on the issue. We want to ensure that there is a new framework for biodiversity. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that COP26 had a big focus on reversing deforestation and supporting biodiversity; we are continuing to press forward on that issue.

[Mr Speaker]

Before we start Prime Minister’s questions, I remind Members of the service at St Margaret’s at 1 o’clock today to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the end of the Falklands war. I hope that as many hon. Members as possible will be able to attend.

I would also like to point out that the British Sign Language interpretation of proceedings on PMQs is available on parliamentlive.tv. [Interruption] Not that sign language!

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is a great champion for Dudley and for the Black Country. In addition to the £1,200 for the 8 million most vulnerable households, we are providing £400 to help everybody with the cost of energy. We are supporting the Black Country with cost-efficient energy infrastructure, and the region has already received £1.5 million to develop a cluster plan for decarbonisation.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the Leader of the Opposition.

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

May I pay tribute to all those who served in the Falklands? My uncle was among them, serving on HMS Antelope when it went down. Thankfully, he made it back, but too many serving in that war did not. We remember them all.

Britain is set for lower growth than every major economy except Russia. Why?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I think everybody can see that I have just answered the question. Once again, the right hon. Gentleman is guilty of what m’legal friends call “ignoratio elenchi”: he has failed to listen to what I have actually said. What would be useful, in supporting the UK economy right now, would be if the leader of the Labour party ended his sphinx-like silence about the RMT’s strikes coming up in the course of the next couple of weeks. Will he now break with his shadow Transport Secretary and denounce Labour’s rail strikes?

[Mr Speaker]

Just to remind the Prime Minister—he seems to have forgotten—it is Prime Minister’s questions, not Opposition questions.

[Keir Starmer]

He is in government. He could do something to stop the strikes, but he has not lifted a finger. I do not want the strikes to go ahead, but he does. He wants the country to grind to a halt so that he can feed off the division.

As for his boasting about the economy, he thinks he can perform Jedi mind tricks on the country—“These aren’t the droids you’re looking for”. “No rules were broken”. “The economy is booming”. The problem is, the Force just isn’t with him any more. He thinks he is Obi-Wan Kenobi; the truth is, he is Jabba the Hutt. Last week he stood there and boasted that we would continue to grow the economy. This week it turns out that the economy shrank for the second month in a row. How does it help Britain to have an ostrich Prime Minister with his head in the sand?

[The Prime Minister]

There he goes again, Mr Speaker, running this country down. We have got the highest employment—the highest payroll employment—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Look, I want to hear the questions and the answers. Whether you like it or not, but I genuinely believe it, the public who watch Prime Minister’s questions also want to hear both.

[The Prime Minister]

We have got lower unemployment than France, Germany, Italy or Canada. As I have said, we have the highest number of people in payroll jobs—620,000 more—since records began. The right hon. Gentleman might like to know that just in the first five months of this year, this country has attracted, I think, £16 billion of investment in its tech sector. He does not like these European comparisons; let us make them for him. That is three times as much as Germany, twice as much as France. He should be talking this country up, not running it down.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Starmer]

I do not want the strikes to go ahead. The Prime Minister does, so that he can feed on the division—[Interruption.] There may be a lot of noise now, but I have a long list of what his MPs really think of him. “Dragging everyone down.” Who said that? Come on! Who was it who said that? “Authority is destroyed.” Come on, hands up! Which of you was it? “Can’t win back trust.” Anybody owning up? You are very quiet now. Hands! Hands!

My personal favourite is this. It is a document circulated by his Back Benchers, in which they call him the “Conservative Corbyn”. Prime Minister, I don’t think that was intended as a compliment. Week after week, he stands there and spouts the same nonsense: the economy is booming, everything is going swimmingly, the people should be grateful. But while he is telling Britain that we have never had it so good, millions of working people and businesses know the reality. Britain’s growth is going to be slower than our competitors, and our inflation higher. A Prime Minister who sounds totally deluded, totally failing on the economy, failing to tackle—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think we need to get to the end of the question, but I will just remind hon. Members that I will hear the end of the question in silence. Any more noise in this corner of the Chamber, and there will be another early cup of tea if we are not careful.

[The Prime Minister]

rose—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Let us hear the Prime Minister.

[The Prime Minister]

A couple of quick points about Mr Corbyn—the right hon. Member for Islington North. First, the right hon. and learned Gentleman tried repeatedly to get him elected as Prime Minister. Secondly, speaking from experience, the right hon. Member for Islington North is relatively dynamic by comparison with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Dynamic and coherent—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It might be helpful if the Prime Minister could speak to me. I am struggling to hear because of the noise on both sides, so please look towards the Chair; it will be easier for both of us.

[The Prime Minister]

What we are going to get on and do is continue to take the tough decisions to take this country forward—decisions that are on the side of the British people. The Opposition are blatantly on the side of the RMT union barons, when there are some ticket offices that barely sell one ticket per hour. We are on the side of the travelling public.

By the way, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not mentioned this, but they are on the side of the people traffickers who would risk people’s lives at sea, and we are on the side of people who come here safely and legally. They carp and snipe from the sidelines—that is what they have always done—and we take the big decisions to take this country forward. No matter how much welly the deputy Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), may ask him to apply, or how much welly he pretends to apply, that welly is always on the left foot.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Sorry—a point of order? The hon. Lady has been here long enough to know that points of order come at the end.

[Andrew Selous]

Many areas—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Have a conversation later!

[Andrew Selous]

Many areas like mine have already had massive new housing development with no commensurate increase in general practice capacity. At one of my surgeries, which has double the recommended number of patients per GP, the bowel cancer diagnosis of a 51-year-old father of four was missed and is now terminal. Getting this right is a life and death issue, so will the Prime Minister make sure that parts of the country that have already had massive new housing growth get the commensurate increase in general practice capacity that is only right and fair?

Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 9th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is a great one for holding the Government and the bureaucracy to account, and he is right to do so. That is why we are looking to significant productivity increases by reducing the size of the civil service back to where it was in 2016, to ensure that services are provided to the public efficiently and effectively. As we reduce the number, so there will be significant taxpayer spending on better technology, because the use of technology speeds up actions for citizens and reduces costs for the taxpayer.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Angela Rayner.

[Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House talks about socialists, but let us talk about the Conservatives. He will be aware that a Conservative peer is under investigation by the National Crime Agency over fraud. PPE Medpro, a company linked to Baroness Mone, was handed hundreds of millions of pounds in Government contracts during the pandemic. It is now reported to have been raided by the police, as has her home. There are serious questions about the due diligence performed on that company, so can the Leader of the House let us know what evidence they hold and why they are refusing to put a single sheet of it out into the public domain? What do they have to hide?

[Mr Speaker]

I should just say that he is no longer the Leader of the House. I know we all assume he is, but there we are.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I was going to point out to the right hon. Lady that business questions will follow in due course and that that would be her opportunity to raise such things with the Leader of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I have had assurances from the Foreign Office that it carefully evaluated the bids in line with its procurement process, and that the answers and documentation supplied provided limited assurance that either supplier could deliver electronic countermeasure systems within the procurement timeframe required. However, I commend my hon. Friend for standing up for his constituents and seeking redress of grievance, which is what this House exists for, and I will question the Foreign Office further to give him further reassurance that the process was carried out fairly and his constituents were not disadvantaged.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister, Rachel Hopkins.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. May I wish you a very happy birthday tomorrow?

The Procurement Bill is important business. The Opposition are concerned that the Government showed little understanding of spending taxpayers’ money efficiently and effectively by irresponsibly wasting billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money during the pandemic. The Procurement Bill is a huge opportunity to ensure that every pound of taxpayers’ money spent takes account of social value—true value for money—to distribute growth, meet environmental targets and develop social wellbeing, but it does not mention social value once. Does the Minister agree that including in the Bill an explicit commitment to deliver social value will help to restore public trust in Government spending, after the failures of the pandemic?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Wheeler]

Fast stream places for autumn 2022 will be honoured and our direct entry apprenticeship and internship schemes will continue to bring new and diverse talent to the civil service. While we pause the fast stream for the 2023 intake, we will take the opportunity to further improve the fast stream offer. That reform will ensure that when the scheme reopens, it is focused on driving up specialist skills in the civil service, as well as improving the regional representation of the fast stream.

I know that my hon. Friend works hard with Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office officials on their international agenda in his capacity as chair of the all-party parliamentary groups on Belgium, Luxembourg and Tunisia. I take the opportunity to update him that, as part of our global Britain agenda and the establishment of the new College for National Security, we are launching international strategy and security fellowships, which are secondments, and where possible—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I have the greatest respect for the Minister, but these are very long answers. We are certainly wandering away from where we started. Let us move on to the shadow Minister.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

Increasing the diversity of the senior civil service is key to strengthening leadership and expanding expertise. Representation of ethnic minorities and disabled people in senior roles is still below the working population average. Given that the fast stream is a proven route to senior roles, it should be used as a tool to boost diversity, so the decision to freeze the scheme puts a reckless, ideological cuts agenda ahead of a sustained strategy to create a senior civil service that truly reflects our country. Can the Minister explain how cutting 91,000 jobs and freezing the fast stream will help to increase diversity in the senior civil service?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I do not know where these figures come from. The hon. Gentleman himself said it, but I am not sure there is any greater source for these figures, though perhaps he will make them available in the Library if there is some better evidence for them.

What we have done by not adding controls on 1 July is ensure we do not add costs to things coming into this country. We believe in free trade. We do not believe in non-tariff barriers. We believe in being as open as possible. That is why my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is negotiating dozens of free trade agreements, many of them already successfully adopted. That is what we will continue to do because a free and open market reduces prices, which we can do as we are no longer under the yoke—the onerous yoke—of the European Union.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Peter Bone, who is no yoke.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

12. What progress his Department has made on identifying potential economic opportunities arising from the UK having left the EU.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I have good news for my hon. Friend: DEFRA’s equine identification team has been in contact with Weatherbys during the development and launch of its e-passport, and the merits of its e-passport will be considered along with responses from a recent consultation, which closes on 28 June. So it is a case of, my hon. Friend asks and it shall be given. Seek and he shall find.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Scottish National party spokesman, Brendan O’Hara.

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

In October 2019, the Brexit Opportunities Minister stood at the Dispatch Box and assured businesses that the “broad, sunlit uplands” of Brexit lay ahead. Yesterday, I spoke to Elizabeth, whose company, Gracefruit, has exported chemicals for cosmetics to the EU for almost two decades. She weathered the financial crash, but such was the impact of Brexit that she has told me she no longer has the

“mental or emotional energy to make a success of a once-thriving business.”

So would he like to tell Elizabeth, and all the others struggling with red tape, soaring costs and a loss of market, when they can expect those “broad, sunlit uplands” to arrive?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Ellis]

I recognise the importance of the correspondence for those constituents who write in. It might be instructive to know that Departments have continued to receive a significantly higher volume of correspondence in 2021, mainly due to the pandemic, and that has had an impact on resource and timeliness of responses. During 2021, most Departments continued to receive a significantly higher volume of correspondence. The Department for Transport was able to answer 92% of 13,363 letters, the Ministry of Defence 88% of 3,773 letters, and the Department for International Trade 84% of 2,182 letters, within 20 days.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Can I gently say that I and the former Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), have been struggling to ensure that Members’ letters, from all sides, are answered? We should not try to defend the indefensible. I will be honest: Members need letters on behalf of their constituents to be answered as quickly as possible and, unfortunately, I am getting all the complaints. So I just want to add that to the burden to take away.

I call James Grundy. Not here.

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Barclay]

The hon. Lady raises an extremely important point. In the work of the equalities unit in the Cabinet Office, a key focus is on variations in the data across social groups, place and economic background, so that we can learn the right lessons. I am sure that, as part of the inquiry review, Judge Hallett will be looking closely at the data, particularly where there are variations within it.

[Mr Speaker]

I call David Duguid. Not here, again.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

T5. May I press the Paymaster General on his earlier answer about contaminated blood? More than 400 infected people have died since the infected blood inquiry was announced. Sir Robert Francis’s report suggests that the Government should offer “substantial interim payments”. How soon will the Government respond to that report and implement its recommendations for those affected?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Leo Docherty)]

We are supporting the private sector by giving a national insurance contribution holiday to those such as Centrica that employ service leavers, and we commend them for doing so. We know that military service gives people fantastic skills for life.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the urgent question. I have allowed the sub judice waiver before, and that will continue.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

We have appointed Katharine Birbalsingh as chair of the Social Mobility Commission. She has taken on the soft bigotry of low expectations at her fantastic school, the Michaela Community School in Brent. We want her to help the whole country, including rural areas and places such as Broadland. Tomorrow, she will lay out her vision in a speech at Policy Exchange entitled “Bucking the trend: a fresh approach to social mobility”.

[Mr Speaker]

I call shadow Secretary of State Anneliese Dodds.

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the Minister agree that her Government have levelled women down, with women’s real wages now £226 less per year than when Labour left office?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I do not agree with that at all. We are entirely focused on tackling the causes of the gender pay gap by making it easier for people to afford childcare, normalising flexible working and helping women to get into the top jobs, particularly in areas such as science, technology, engineering, and mathematics where they can earn more money.

[Mr Speaker]

I call SNP spokesperson Kirsten Oswald.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

The Women’s Budget Group has pointed out that women are being hit the hardest by this Tory cost of living crisis, and research from the Resolution Foundation has highlighted that the UK Government’s welfare reforms will push 500,000 children into poverty. The reality is that the UK Government are pushing communities down, not levelling them up. Will the Minister ask the Chancellor to follow the example of the Scottish Government and provide families with the support they need to get through the Tory cost of living crisis?

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Caulfield]

The hon. Lady has campaigned very hard on IVF. I can say that IVF will be in the women’s health strategy; IVF services are commissioned at a local level, but there is disparity in how they are commissioned in local areas, and we want to see consistency of service offered to women and partners.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, Caroline Nokes.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

Endometriosis South Coast does brilliant work supporting women suffering from endometriosis, but it is seeking reassurance from the Minister that, when the women’s health ambassador is appointed, she will be a real champion for those affected by this condition and other women-only conditions that are so impactful on their to continue work. Can the Minister update the House on when the women’s health ambassador will be announced, given that we have been expecting the post since December?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michelle Donelan]

I would be delighted to take up the opportunity to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency and hear more about the work that his local businesses are doing to enhance the opportunities of young people.

[Mr Speaker]

I call shadow Secretary of State Anneliese Dodds.

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister for Women and Equalities has just lauded her Government’s social mobility tsar. Does the Minister for Higher and Further Education agree with that tsar that

“physics isn’t something that girls tend to fancy…There’s a lot of hard maths in there”?

If not, will she condemn those remarks and others that put girls and women off careers in STEM because of, to use the words of the Minister for Women and Equalities, the

“soft bigotry of low expectations”?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I would like to point out that the British Sign Language interpretation of proceedings is available to watch on parliamentlive.tv.

The Prime Minister was asked—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. He raises an issue on which the UK has campaigned for a long time, and no country is more committed than we are to bringing war criminals to justice. I know that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has raised the subject recently with the International Criminal Court. However, as he knows—and I will certainly, of course, study the case and take it up appropriately—it is the subject of an ongoing investigation, and it would not be appropriate for me to comment on it further.

[Mr Speaker]

We come to the Leader of the Opposition. [Interruption.]

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I could not make out whether that introductory noise was cheers or boos. [Interruption.] The trouble is, I do not know whether it is directed at me or the Prime Minister.

I join the Prime Minister in his comments about carers. Why did his Culture Secretary, who I think is hiding along the Front Bench, say that successive Conservative Governments left our health service “wanting and inadequate” when the pandemic hit?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

This line of criticism is satirical coming from Labour, attacking our hospital building programme when the Labour Government were the authors of the PFI scheme that bankrupted so many hospitals. [Interruption.] They were. What we are doing instead is building 48 new hospitals—[Interruption.] Yes, we are—thanks to the biggest capital investment programme in the history of the NHS. From memory, we put in £33 billion as soon as we came in, then another £92 billion to cope with the pandemic, plus another £39 billion in the health and care levy. Labour Members opposed that funding. They opposed the health and care levy. They do not have a leg to stand on. We are building the foundations of our health service’s future and they should support it. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Can I just say to both of you that you need to calm down? And there are two over here as well. The four of you could have a very nice cup of tea if you wish.

[Keir Starmer]

Oh dear. Prime Minister, dear, dear me. [Interruption.] Pretending no rules were—[Interruption.] He chunters on. Pretending no rules were broken did not work, pretending the economy is booming did not work and pretending to build 40 new hospitals will not work either. Conservative Members want him to change, but he cannot. As always with this Prime Minister, when he is falling short he just changes the rules and lowers the bar. In March, he proposed changing the NHS contract. He wants to double the length of time patients can be made to wait for surgery from one year to two years. On top of that, he scrapped zero tolerance of 12-hour waits at A&E. “24 Hours in A&E” used to be a TV programme. Now, it is his policy. Well, it is health week and he is telling all of them—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Cleverly, we have a tea party gathering. I am sure you do not want to be part of it. I want to hear the question. The problem is so do our constituents. [Interruption.] I would not if I were you, and I think one or two of you might be going early. Look, I need to hear the question in the same way that I expect to hear the answer, so please.

[Keir Starmer]

Mr Speaker, I bet they wish they had been this organised on Monday.

It is health week and the Prime Minister is telling Conservative Members that he is going to turn over a new leaf, so why does he not start by scrapping his plans to green- light “wanting and inadequate” NHS standards?

[The Prime Minister]

I have to tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I just think this line of attack is not working—[Interruption.] It is not working because they refused to approve—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Once again, I think the two of you need to calm down. We do not want to see empty Front Benches.

[The Prime Minister]

Not only have we raised standards in the NHS, and not only are we reducing waiting times for those who have had to wait the longest, but more fundamentally, we are doing what the people of this country can see is simple common sense: using our economic strength to invest in doctors and nurses and get people on the wards, giving people their scans, screens and tests in a more timely manner and taking our NHS forward. We are on target to recruit 50,000 more nurses, thanks to this Government—[Interruption.] I am just going to repeat this, because the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not seem to have heard it so far—and thanks to the investments that the Labour party opposed. Perhaps he can explain why they opposed them.

[The Prime Minister]

I think everybody in the House has sympathy with Akshay and the other constituents, and their families, that he mentions. I share their feelings, but when we look at what this Government are doing— I must say this to the right hon. and learned Gentleman—we see that we are making colossal investments in our NHS. We are cutting waiting times, raising standards, paying nurses more and supporting our fantastic NHS. By the way, he continually came to this House—I will just remind him of this—and said that we had the worst covid record in Europe. It turned out to be completely untrue; he still has not retracted it. We can make those investments because of the strength of the UK economy, because of the fiscal firepower that we have to deploy. We have the lowest unemployment now since 1974 and we are going to continue to grow our economy for the long term.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman asks about the mission of this Government. It is to unite and level up across our whole country, to unleash the potential of our entire country. We have the biggest tutoring programme in history for young people and are raising literacy and numeracy standards for 11-year-olds from 65% adequacy to 90%—that is the highest objective that a Government could achieve. We are expanding home ownership, as the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and I will do for millions of people who currently do not have it—[Interruption.] No. We are cutting the costs of business to make this the enterprise centre of Europe. That is our vision, creating high-wage, high-skilled jobs for this country. As for jobs, I am going to get on with mine and I hope he gets on with his.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Sir Oliver Heald—[Interruption.] I didn’t know you were so popular!

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Q3. Changing the subject completely, in North East Hertfordshire we are very concerned about sewage overflows into our precious chalk streams. This is damaging to the flora and fauna, and also restricts the use of these precious streams for leisure. The Environment Act 2021 includes some important measures, and I welcome the fact that the Government have consulted on their reduction plan for storm overflows, but when can we expect to see meaningful improvements and real reductions in the amount of sewage going into our rivers?

[The Prime Minister]

I share my right hon. and learned Friend’s concern. Our sewage plan is the biggest investment by any Government. We have made it clear that water companies must do more. Actually, we are already seeing improvement, but the regulator is ensuring that the water companies do more to deliver on their obligations, and we will not hesitate to take further action as needed.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the leader of the SNP, Ian Blackford.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I think the hon. Member has been here long enough to know that points of order come after statements. We do not need to tell him the rules of the House.

Standards in Public Life

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 7th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before we start the first debate, I remind the House again of the importance of good temper and moderation in our proceedings, as set out in “Erskine May”. “Erskine May” also makes it clear that it is not in order to accuse another Member of lying, unless the business under consideration is a distinct motion about the conduct of that Member. That is not the case today and any such accusations will not be tolerated.

Sue Gray Report

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 25th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)]

With permission, I will make a statement, Mr Speaker. I am grateful to Sue Gray for her report today, and I want to thank her for the work that she has done. I also thank the Metropolitan police for completing its investigation.

I want to begin today by renewing my apology to the House and to the whole country for the short lunchtime gathering on 19 June 2020 in the Cabinet Room, during which I stood at my place at the Cabinet table and for which I received a fixed penalty notice. I also want to say, above all, that I take full responsibility for everything that took place on my watch. Sue Gray’s report has emphasised that it is up to the political leadership in No. 10 to take ultimate responsibility, and, of course, I do. But since these investigations have now come to an end, this is my first opportunity to set out some of the context, and to explain both my understanding of what happened and what I have previously said to the House.

It is important to set out that over a period of about 600 days, gatherings on a total of eight dates have been found to be in breach of the regulations in a building that is 5,300 metres square across five floors, excluding the flats—[Interruption.] Mr Speaker, I do think this is important, because it is the first chance I have had to set out the context. Hundreds of staff are entitled to work there, and the Cabinet Office, which has thousands of officials, is now the biggest that it has been at any point in its 100-year history. That is, in itself, one of the reasons why the Government are now looking for change and reform.

Those staff working in Downing Street were permitted to continue attending their office for the purpose of work, and the exemption under the regulations applied to their work because of the nature of their jobs, reporting directly to the Prime Minister. These people were working extremely long hours, doing their best to give this country the ability to fight the pandemic during—[Interruption.] Mr Speaker, I appreciate that this is no mitigation, but it is important to set out the context.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I appeal to the House: I expect the statement to be heard, and I want everybody to hear it. I want the same respect to be shown to the Leader of the Opposition afterwards. Please: this is a very important statement. The country wants to hear it as well.

[The Prime Minister]

Mr Speaker, I am trying to set out the context, not to mitigate or to absolve myself in any way.

The exemption under which those staff were present in Downing Street includes circumstances where officials and advisers were leaving the Government, and it was appropriate to recognise them and to thank them for the work that they have done. [Interruption.] Let me come to that, Mr Speaker. I briefly attended such gatherings to thank them for their service—which I believe is one of the essential duties of leadership, and is particularly important when people need to feel that their contributions have been appreciated—and to keep morale as high as possible. [Interruption.] I am trying to explain the reasons why I was there, Mr Speaker.

It is clear from what Sue Gray has had to say that some of these gatherings then went on far longer than was necessary. They were clearly in breach of the rules, and they fell foul of the rules. I have to tell the House, because the House will need to know this—again, this is not to mitigate or to extenuate—that I had no knowledge of subsequent proceedings, because I simply was not there, and I have been as surprised and disappointed as anyone else in this House as the revelations have unfolded. Frankly, I have been appalled by some of the behaviour, particularly in the treatment of the security and the cleaning staff. I would like to apologise to those members of staff, and I expect anyone who behaved in that way to apologise to them as well.

I am happy to set on the record now that when I came to this House and said in all sincerity that the rules and guidance had been followed at all times, it was what I believed to be true. It was certainly the case when I was present at gatherings to wish staff farewell—the House will note that my attendance at these moments, brief as it was, has not been found to be outside the rules—but clearly this was not the case for some of those gatherings after I had left, and at other gatherings when I was not even in the building. So I would like to correct the record—to take this opportunity, not in any sense to absolve myself of responsibility, which I take and have always taken, but simply to explain why I spoke as I did in this House.

In response to her interim report, Sue Gray acknowledges that very significant changes have already been enacted. She writes:

“I am pleased progress is being made in addressing the issues I raised.”

She adds:

“Since my update there have been changes to the organisation and management of Downing Street and the Cabinet Office with the aim of creating clearer lines of leadership and accountability and now these need the chance and time to bed in.”

No. 10 now has its own permanent secretary, charged with applying the highest standards of governance. There are now easier ways for staff to voice any worries, and Sue Gray welcomes the fact that

“steps have since been taken to introduce more easily accessible means by which to raise concerns electronically, in person or online, including directly with the Permanent Secretary”.

The entire senior management has changed. There is a new chief of staff, an elected Member of this House who commands the status of a Cabinet Minister. There is a new director of communications, a new principal private secretary and a number of other key appointments in my office. I am confident, with the changes and new structures that are now in place, that we are humbled by the experience and we have learned our lesson.

I want to conclude by saying that I am humbled, and I have learned a lesson. Whatever the failings—[Interruption.] We will come to that. Whatever the failings of No. 10 and the Cabinet Office throughout this very difficult period—[Interruption.] And my own, for which I take full responsibility. I continue to believe that the civil servants and advisers in question—hundreds of them, thousands of them, some of whom are the very people who have received fines—are good, hard-working people, motivated by the highest calling to do the very best for our country. I will always be proud of what they achieved, including procuring essential life-saving personal protective equipment, creating the biggest testing programme in Europe and helping to enable the development and distribution of the vaccine that got this country through the worst pandemic of a century.

Now we must get our country through the aftershocks of covid with every ounce of ingenuity, compassion and hard work. I hope that today, as well as learning the lessons from Sue Gray’s report, which I am glad I commissioned—I am grateful to her—we will be able to move on and focus on the priorities of the British people: standing firm against Russian aggression; easing the hardship caused by the rising costs that people are facing; and fulfilling our pledges to generate a high-wage, high-skill, high-employment economy that will unite and level up across the whole of our United Kingdom. That is my mission, that is our mission, that is the mission of the whole Government, and we will work day and night to deliver it. I commend this statement to the House.

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

The door of No. 10 Downing Street is one of the great symbols of our democracy. Those who live behind it exercise great power, but they do so knowing that their stay is temporary. Long after they have gone, that door and the democracy it represents will remain firm and unyielding. But Britain’s constitution is fragile. It relies on Members of this House and the custodians of No. 10 behaving responsibly, honestly and in the interests of the British people. When our leaders fall short of those standards, this House has to act.

For months, Conservative Members have asked the country to wait—first for the police investigation, which concluded that this Prime Minister is the first in our country’s history to have broken the law in office, and then for the Sue Gray report. They need wait no longer. That report lays bare the rot that, under this Prime Minister, has spread in No. 10, and it provides definitive proof of how those within the building treated the sacrifices of the British people with utter contempt. When the dust settles and the anger subsides, this report will stand as a monument to the hubris and arrogance of a Government who believed it was one rule for them, and another rule for everyone else.

The details are stark. Five months ago, the Prime Minister told this House that all guidance was completely followed in No. 10, yet we now know he attended events on 17 December. At least one of those attending has received a fine for it, deeming it illegal. We know that on 18 December, an event was held in which staff “drank excessively”, which others in the building described as a “party”, and that cleaners were left to mop up the red wine the next day. On 20 May, as a covid press conference was taking place, one of the Prime Minister’s senior officials was told, “Be mindful; cameras are leaving. Don’t walk about waving bottles.”

It is now impossible to defend the Prime Minister’s words to this House. This is about trust. During that 20 May press conference, the British public were told that normal life as we know it was a long way off, but that was not the case in No. 10. Even now, after 126 fines, they think it is everyone else’s fault but theirs. They expect others to take the blame while they cling on. They pretend that the Prime Minister has somehow been exonerated, as if the fact that he only broke the law once is worthy of praise. The truth is that they set the bar for his conduct lower than a snake’s belly, and now they expect the rest of us to congratulate him as he stumbles over it.

No. 10 symbolises the principles of public life in this country: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. But who could read this report and honestly believe that the Prime Minister has upheld those standards? The reason the British public have had to endure this farce was his refusal to admit the truth or do the decent thing when he was found to have broken the law. This report was necessary because of what Sue Gray describes as

“failures of leadership and judgment”,

for which senior political leadership “must bear responsibility”. It is that failure of leadership that has now left his Government paralysed in the middle of a cost of living crisis. The Prime Minister has turned the focus of his Government to saving his own skin. It is utterly shameful. It is precisely because he cannot lead that it falls to others to do so. I have been clear what leadership looks like. [Interruption.] I have not broken any rules, and any attempt—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Can I just calm it down? Quite rightly, I wanted to hear the Prime Minister; the same goes for the Leader of the Opposition. Those who do not wish to hear, please go and have a cup of tea or something.

[Keir Starmer]

I have been clear what leadership looks like. I have not broken any rules, and any attempt to compare a perfectly legal takeaway while working to this catalogue of criminality looks even more ridiculous today, but if the police decide otherwise, I will do the decent thing and step down. The public need to know that not all politicians are the same—that not all politicians put themselves above their country—and that honesty, integrity and accountability matter.

Conservative Members now also need to show leadership. This Prime Minister is steering the country in the wrong direction. Conservative Members can hide in the back seat, eyes covered, praying for a miracle, or they can act to stop this out-of-touch, out-of-control Prime Minister driving Britain towards disaster. We waited for the Sue Gray report. The country cannot wait any longer. The values symbolised by the door of No. 10 must be restored. Conservative Members must finally do their bit. They must tell the current inhabitant, their leader, that this has gone on too long. The game is up. You cannot be a lawmaker and a lawbreaker, and it is time to pack his bags. Only then can the Government function again. Only then can the rot be carved out. Only then can we restore the dignity of that great office and the democracy that it represents.

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about what went on in No. 10 Downing Street and the events behind that black door, and about the number of events. All I will say to him is that he, throughout the pandemic, was not leading many thousands of people in the fight against coronavirus. He was sniping from the sidelines and veering from one position to the next, and today he has done it again. Week after week, he could have come to this House and talked about the economy, about Ukraine, about the cost of living—but no, Mr Speaker: time after time, he chose to focus on this issue. He could have shown some common sense, and recognised that when people are working very hard together, day in day out, it can be difficult to draw the boundary between work and socialising. And yet, after months of his frankly sanctimonious obsession, the great gaseous zeppelin of his pomposity has been permanently and irretrievably punctured by the revelation that—he did not mention this— he is himself under investigation by the police.

I am not going to mince my words. I have got to say this. Sir Beer Korma is currently failing to hold himself to the same high standards that he demanded of me. It is true. He called for me to resign when the investigation began. Why is he in his place? Why—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Holden, for the second time, I ask you please to help me to help you, because I am sure you want to hear the rest of this.

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman should at least be consistent, and hold himself to the same standards. He is still there, and so is the deputy Leader of the Opposition.

I apologised when the revelations emerged, and I continue to apologise. I repeat that I am humbled by what has happened, and we have instituted profound changes throughout No. 10, but in view of the mess in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has found himself, it would now be sensible for him, too, to apologise, so that we can all collectively move on. That, I think, is what the people of this country want to see above all. They want to see leadership from this House of Commons, and leadership from both parties, in dealing with their priorities. That is why we are focused on getting through the aftershocks of covid, that is why I am proud of what we did to roll out the fastest vaccine campaign in Europe, and that is why I am proud that we now have the lowest unemployment in this country for 50 years. That is what the people of this country want. I appreciate that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has his points to make, but I think that, overwhelmingly, the will of this country is for us now to say thank you to Sue Gray and for us collectively to move on.

[The Prime Minister]

No, Mr Speaker, for the reason I have given: that at the time when I spoke to this House, I believed that what I was doing was attending work events, and, with the exception of the event in the Cabinet Room, that is a view that has been vindicated by the investigation.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the Scottish National party, Ian Blackford.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

I feel as if I have completely let down those who showered me with so much love. Why wasn’t I by the bedside of my lovely grandmother during her final few days? Why did I let her die alone in that hospital? Why did I not attend the funeral of my uncle? It was because of worries about Government restrictions on numbers. And why did I not go to comfort my brother- in-law’s father as he was dying in a Slough care home? With all of this context, it is utterly hypocritical for those very individuals who were preaching to us ad nauseam about patriotism, the flag and the Queen to be having late-night parties, including two on the night before the Queen had to sit all alone during her husband’s funeral when the country was in a state of national mourning. Absolutely shameless. Given that the Prime Minister is not going to do the right and honourable thing, does he agree that it is not the support and sympathy of the British people that are keeping him in power, the majority of whom want him to resign, but the support and sympathy of those—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry, but this is meant to be a question. Also we do not normally bring the monarchy into proceedings. I am sure that the Prime Minister will have got the gist. I understand the emotions behind this, but questions have to be shorter.

[The Prime Minister]

I am very sorry for the hon. Gentleman’s loss. He has a perfect right to speak with the passion that he does. All I can say is that I take full responsibility for what happened, and we have made extensive changes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)]

Now we have had this report and the Prime Minister has repeatedly apologised, does he not agree that we should be focusing on the real issues that matter to the British public—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Both of you need to have a cup of tea outside, because I cannot hear the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) with you both shouting at each other.

A separate debate was trying to be created, but we do not need to worry anymore.

[Jack Brereton]

Does the Prime Minister not agree that we should focus on the real issues that matter to the British people: the cost of living and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine? Given what happened in Durham, the only people left to apologise in this Chamber are on the Labour Front Bench.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the provision of a home—of accommodation—for those leaving the secure estate is critical. We believe that there are three pillars to success: a job, a house and a friend to put people on to the straight and narrow. I do not have to publish a report to underline that, because there has been plenty of research to prove that it is the case. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that we do have an action plan, with some challenging targets, to ensure that all those leaving the secure estate can access the accommodation they need to get them back on to the straight and narrow.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister, Ellie Reeves.

[Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)]

Unpaid work gives offenders a chance to give back to their communities, but huge workloads and staff shortages in the probation service mean that in some areas there is a backlog of up to 100,000 hours owed by offenders, and some have even had their hours wiped because they have not been completed in time. Is this not just another example of our broken justice system—a system that lets offenders off while victims pay the price? When will the Government get serious and fix this?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge]

These are important points. Attrition is most important with regard to rape. As the Deputy Prime Minister has said, the total number of rape convictions was up 67% last year, and I can confirm that in the last quarter of last year they were up 15%, so we are making progress but we want to go further. That is why it is so important that we have put in place all the measures to increase capacity in our courts and it is why the backlog is now falling.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee, Bob Neill.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

The Minister is right to highlight the work that is being done to increase support for victims, but he will be aware that the Justice Committee published a report on court capacity on 27 April. I look forward to hearing his response to it. In the summary, we highlight that despite efforts from the Government to go in the right direction:

“Delays in the Crown Court have reached a point where they are causing significant injustice.”

Is it not the reality that solving this will require not just victim measures but, more significantly, a root-and-branch attempt to tackle all the elements of delay, which relate to judicial capacity, physical capacity and maintenance of the estate, improved data and technology and improved processes in the Crown court? All those must come together, and that requires sustained investment. Will the Minister respond in detail to the report in due course?

[James Cartlidge]

I look forward to responding to it. My hon. Friend is absolutely right about resources, and that is why we had almost £0.5 billion of funding in the spending review settlement, particularly to tackle Crown court backlogs. He is also right to talk about judicial capacity. As we came out of the pandemic, having resisted the temptation to lock down again at Christmas, we reopened 60 courtrooms that had been closed, so we have the rooms, more or less—with some local variance—but he is right to say that we need judicial capacity. One key issue in the recruitment of judges was the pension scheme, but we have just had Royal Assent for a new scheme, which should address that important aspect of capacity in our courts.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister, Alex Cunningham.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

Let me remind the Minister that 67% of a small number is still a small number. The recent criminal justice joint inspection report into pandemic recovery noted:

“The prospect of waiting years for justice is likely to be traumatising for victims and their families and has a damaging impact on justice itself, making it more likely that victims will drop out of cases”.

We know that the Ministry has secured funding to reduce the backlog to 53,000 cases by 2025, but that number still dwarfs pre-pandemic figures. We all want timely justice for defendants and victims, so can the Minister confirm how long on average people are waiting for their cases to come to court, and what impact the additional funding will have on cutting those waiting times?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge]

That is a fair question, but I do not accept that there are areas of the country where people are denied access to justice because there are no legal aid providers. The Legal Aid Agency keeps market capacity under constant review and takes immediate action where gaps appear by tendering for new providers and amending contractual requirements to encourage new providers into the market. In England and Wales, legal advice on housing matters is available, wherever people are, through the Civil Legal Advice telephone service.

On access to legal aid, as I said, we are consulting on proposals that will increase the number of people who can access civil legal aid by 2 million, which is a significant measure.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister, Afzal Khan.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) for raising the importance of access to legal aid. In fact, his region—the east midlands—has seen an above average fall in access to criminal and civil legal aid since 2013. Compared with England and Wales as a whole, the region also has a higher proportion of local authorities with no providers of legal aid on housing, immigration, family and community care law. These legal aid deserts are worst for family and community care law, with the cost of living crisis compounding that further. Victims are being let down at every stage.

Legal aid deserts are a direct result of chronic underfunding, and they deny justice to victims across the UK. The Government have failed to deliver even the bare minimum of what Sir Christopher Bellamy advised in his review. I understand that the Government are considering a civil sustainability review, so perhaps the Justice Secretary will provide further details. The Government like to pay lip service to levelling up the country, but when will the Lord Chancellor level up access to justice?

[James Cartlidge]

It would probably be more helpful if I referred to what the hon. Gentleman said on a previous occasion. On 15 March, in response to the Deputy Prime Minister’s statement about criminal legal aid and the measures that we were taking, he said:

“Today’s announcement and response to the Bellamy review is welcome, particularly the Government’s commitment to increase legal aid rates by the 15% that Sir Christopher Bellamy recommended.” —[Official Report, 15 March 2022; Vol. 710, c. 777.]

That is what we are doing. He recommended £135 million of additional funding for criminal legal aid. That is what we are proposing and what we are consulting on. So my job as I see it is very clear. It is to get on with ensuring that those criminal legal aid rates are increased as soon as is practicable, and we look forward to introducing a statutory instrument later this year.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Scottish National party spokesperson, Stuart C. McDonald.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

I wonder if I might suggest that another review of partygate could help inform Government policy on legal aid and access to justice. I say that because of the widely perceived link between a person’s ability to pay for legal advice and the number of fixed penalty notices that that person might receive, compared to others attending the very same event. So during his consultation, will the Minister speak to junior Downing Street staff and civil servants about their views on the significance of access to and the affordability of criminal legal advice?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dominic Raab]

My hon. Friend is right. The still high volume—around 70%—of successful challenges, on human rights grounds, of deportation orders by foreign national offenders is on article 8 grounds. That is exactly the kind of thing that our reforms will address and the public across the UK will welcome.

[Mr Speaker]

Stuart C. McDonald, the SNP spokesperson.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

Thank you again, Mr Speaker. The Human Rights Act 1998 has become a cornerstone of justice and democracy in the United Kingdom. It is pivotal legislation not to be tinkered with lightly. Given that cross-party MPs have today found that the now Justice Secretary presided over a

“disaster and a betrayal of our allies”

and

“a lack of seriousness, grip or leadership at a time of national emergency.”

in relation to Afghanistan, I have to ask in all seriousness why he should be allowed anywhere near such fundamental legislation and indeed why he is in ministerial office at all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

It is reported that the penalties can be discharged by working from home. Please tell me that is not true.

[Mr Speaker]

A yes or a no will do.

[Kit Malthouse]

My county colleague can always be relied on to emerge from the forest and ask the most challenging questions. He is correct that independent working projects, while not ideal, were introduced during the pandemic to allow offenders to discharge their sentence with robust and rigorous projects done at home, such as manufacturing personal protective equipment or, more recently, clothing items for Ukrainian refugees. It is our intention to reduce the proportion of sentences that can be done under home working, although for those who cannot handle a brush and a shovel there may well still be a place for it in the future—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I call the shadow Secretary of State. That is too long an answer.

[Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)]

We have heard a lot of complacency from the Government Benches on this issue. According to the Minister’s own Department, community payback offenders now carry out 75% fewer hours of unpaid work compared with five years ago. On average, 30,000 offenders get away without completing their community sentences every year, and now we hear the Government are letting criminals finish their unpaid work sentences at home. Why have they gone so soft on crime that they are letting those criminals get away with it?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge]

I am coming to those. Of course we want to reduce delays as far as possible, but, to give a sense of the progress that we are making, I should say that in March there were 124,000 disposals in the magistrates courts and 9,280 in the Crown courts. Those are the highest figures for both since the pandemic. They show that output is increasing. That is why the backlog is now falling; we expect it to continue falling further.

[Mr Speaker]

It will help even more when you open the Chorley court again.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The victims of modern-day slavery experience the worst of violence and sexual assault. One of the ways in which we can keep them engaged with the justice system is for there to be victim navigators, which the Government are piloting. If that approach could be spread further, more people would be kept in the court system and more of these evil gangs would be taken off our streets.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dominic Raab]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. As was mentioned earlier, something like 50% to 55% of cases that go to the family court are safeguarding or domestic abuse cases. I do think those need the authority of a judge, but the rest, frankly, should by and large be dispensed with before court through an alternative dispute resolution of one sort or another. We talked about considering making mediation compulsory, but crucially, we need the incentives and disincentives for early resolution to be unequivocal.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)]

Voters in Wakefield are furious that the Conservative party ignored a victim of child sexual abuse and allowed his paedophile abuser to become their MP. Will the Justice Secretary back an independent investigation into why his party failed to act on what this courageous victim told them?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dominic Raab]

A man after my own heart. My hon. Friend is right that it is a total abuse, which the Opposition seem to want to give succour to, to allow the freedom of speech and the right to peaceful protest to become a right to sabotage. It will be very interesting to see in the weeks ahead whether they stand on the side of the public or on the side of those saboteurs. The Public Order Bill will help us to address this issue, and I can also assure my hon. Friend that courts already have the power to impose compensation.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I know that we may have some by-elections coming, but the fact is that we are on topicals, and they are meant to be short and sweet. Lots of Members want to get in, and you are stopping Members from getting in. It is not fair.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

T4. My brave constituent Claire Ball used all her strength and courage to report that she was sexually abused as a child. She endured a painful court process, where her good character was continually called into question. While her abuser was allowed multiple character witnesses to state that he was a good person, Claire was not. What is the Secretary of State going to do to make sure that victims are afforded the same rights as perpetrators?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dominic Raab]

No.

[Mr Speaker]

That is a quick answer—the best we have had to today—and we can learn from that.

Debate on the Address

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 10th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[1st day]

[Mr Speaker]

Before I call the mover and seconder, I want to announce the proposed subjects of debate during the remaining days on the Loyal Address, which are: Wednesday 11 May—preventing crime and delivering justice; Thursday 12 May—fairness at work, power in communities; Monday 16 May—making Britain the best place to grow up and grow old; Tuesday 17 May—tackling the short-term and long-term cost of living increases; Wednesday 18 May—achieving economic growth.

I now have the pleasure of calling the shy and retiring Graham Stuart to move, and then Fay Jones to second, the Address.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:

Most Gracious Sovereign,

We, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which was addressed to both Houses of Parliament.

It is a great honour for me and my constituents in Beverley and Holderness that I propose the Humble Address, and all the more so in this platinum jubilee year—I think we can all take it as read that this packed Chamber is intimidating and creates a certain amount of nerves. We wish Her Majesty the best of health and thank her for her seven decades of service to the country. Her Majesty has demonstrated a selflessness that puts the rest of us, perhaps not least in here, to shame.

The legislative agenda we are debating today must be seen within the most alarming of international contexts. Russia’s unprovoked and unjustifiable attack on Ukraine has united the whole House in condemnation. We stand together with our friends in Ukraine, and I congratulate the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), the Leader of the Opposition, on his party’s wholehearted backing for the measures to support the Ukrainians. We are providing rocket launchers, complete with rockets—so different from the Trident submarines that the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s party previously proposed, which were to have been built but, hon. Members will remember, never armed.

No one in politics minds being senior but, equally, no one wishes to be seen as past it, yet today I fulfil the role of the old duffer whose best days are behind him, while my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Fay Jones) plays the part of the up-and-coming talent. The Chief Whip certainly made the right decision with the latter, as we shall soon hear. But given my part today, I thought I would dispense some advice, both to those seeking to enter Parliament and to young thrusters already here, many of whom were elected as long as two years ago—you know who you are. I cannot believe that you are still not in the Cabinet. Some of us are here for a long time, some for a short time—and some, according to our media friends, for a good time. [Laughter.]

For candidates, my advice is to keep going and realise how much simply comes down to luck. When I applied to Beverley and Holderness Conservative association, the senior officers had already decided who they were going to have as their candidate: none other than their then Member of the European Parliament, who would not be able to continue in that role, now my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Sir Robert Goodwill). After I won that selection, by two votes, two elderly lady members congratulated me and told me they had voted for me. The first one said to me, “You spoke very well, Mr Stuart.” “Thank you”, I said. The other one came in with, “Yes, but Robert Goodwill—he was brilliant”, to which the other replied, “He’s got a job already.”

Robert, of course, won selection in Scarborough. He then went on to overturn Lawrie Quinn’s 3,500 majority, and was, I think, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), the only Conservative candidate in the whole of the north of England to take a seat from the Labour party at that election. The Leader of the Opposition must wish it was so today. Instead the only thing opening up for him in the north is a police investigation. [Laughter.] Some months after the election, I met a member of my association’s executive committee, who actually congratulated me and said that he was glad that I had been selected as a candidate after all. I thought at last my hard work was being recognised, and then he added, “Because you’d have never won Scarborough.”

My constituency of Beverley and Holderness comprises four towns—Beverley, Hornsea, Withernsea and Hedon—and many other hamlets and villages that are dotted across east Yorkshire. It is a beautiful part of the world and has history as well as charm. Beverley has contributed more than most places to the improvement of our democratic system over the years—admittedly chiefly by running elections in such a corrupt manner that the law had to be changed afterwards. After the unseating of the victorious candidate in 1727 by a petition, his agents were imprisoned and Parliament passed a whole new bribery Act. But Beverley’s notorious freemen were not to be put off so easily. Beverley continued to be a byword for electoral malpractice. The novelist Anthony Trollope stood in the Liberal interest, unsuccessfully, in 1868, and such was the level of wrongdoing that a royal commission was established especially and a new law passed disenfranchising the town and barring it from ever returning a Member of Parliament again. Obviously the law did change. Free beer and cash inducements were the electoral controversies then, rather than, say, beer and curry today. Never in the history of human conflict has so much karma come from a korma.

I said I would provide some advice for our up and coming parliamentarians. When I arrived here, I was just about wise enough to back the winner of the leadership contest that summer, David Cameron. What I was not wise enough to do was stop telling him every way in which I thought he was going wrong, and I do mean every way. Funnily enough, that resulted in an 11-year wait to be asked to go on to the Front Bench—a wait that ended only when he stepped down. It may be that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) saw merit where her predecessor did not, but it is more likely that she had just seen a lot less of me. Lesson one for the up and coming: do not make an enemy of your party leader.

There is of course more to this place than the Front Bench. In my first term, community hospitals were being closed in swathes right across the country, and all three in my constituency were lined up for the chop. Having led marches and demonstrations in all the towns across my constituency, it became obvious to me that the problem would not be solved locally, so I set up a campaign group, CHANT, or Community Hospitals Acting Nationally Together. Along with my deputy chairman, the then Member for Henley, I recruited colleagues from right across the House. We waged guerrilla warfare on Labour’s Department of Health, breaking the record for the number of petitions presented in one day in this House.

We held a rally outside this place. There were hundreds of people, and banners and placards galore. David Cameron spoke; so did Labour MPs; and I remember my deputy giving a rousing speech. So carried away with the righteousness of our cause was he that he called on everyone to join us on a march to Parliament Square. So it was that our now Prime Minister found himself being intercepted by a police inspector, who told him that no permission existed for such a march, and that we must go back. There are two lessons here: never stop campaigning for what you believe in; and, having marched your troops to the top of the hill, never be afraid to march them down again, if circumstances necessitate it.

When the call did come, I was lucky enough to go into the Whips Office, the only communal playpen in Westminster aside from the crèche. Being there made me realise how little I knew after 11 years here, because as a Whip, you learn a lot. That is another lesson: join the Whips Office if asked.

Given my position, I would like to tell the House that being in government is not all it is cracked up to be, but actually it is. I served both my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) and my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) when they were Secretary of State for International Trade. Both were exceptional. They were tireless and demanding, but delivered, from a new Department, outcomes that no one thought possible. So, young thrusters, enjoy any Department that you are in, and value it for itself, and not just as a stepping stone to something else. After all, as I discovered last September, you never know when you will be prematurely on the Back Benches.

Today’s Queen’s Speech unveils a substantial legislative programme under four main headings: boosting economic growth and helping with the cost of living; making our streets safer; funding the NHS and tackling the backlog; and, providing leadership in troubled times. To pick out one item, if I may, the energy Bill is of particular importance to my constituents. It will make possible the development of hydrogen, and of carbon capture and storage, on which I expect the Humber to be not only a national but a global leader. It will take us to net zero and give us energy security and huge export potential.

The Conservative party, under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, has work to do. We were elected to deliver our manifesto and level up the United Kingdom, and that is what we will do. Despite the human weakness that is all too present in this place, I believe that nearly everyone here is in politics for the right reasons, and that elected public service continues to be a noble calling. I hope that potential candidates from all sides will continue to come forward; that young thrusters will show ambition for their country, as well as for themselves; and that before we fire legislative bullets at the challenges that face us, we will, in this platinum jubilee year, take aim and, like our Ukrainian friends, say with total conviction, “God save the Queen.” I commend the Gracious Speech to this House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Fay Jones to second the motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

As I give way to the hon. Lady, I remind the House that there has never been a Labour Government who left office with unemployment lower than when they came in.

[Mr Speaker]

It is not normal to give way in these speeches, but obviously the Prime Minister has agreed to do so.

[Sarah Owen]

I thank the Prime Minister for giving way. We have heard a lot of words being very rapidly delivered, but what we have not heard yet is an apology to the pensioners who are choosing between heating and eating, an apology to the children who have gone hungry throughout the school holidays and an apology to the hundreds of thousands of family members of covid victims who were lost during the pandemic.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Perkins]

Will the Prime Minister give way?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Only one person can be on their feet at the same time. The Prime Minister is not giving way.

[The Prime Minister]

The Leader of the Opposition of the moment purports or claims to oppose the plans, but it turns out that they were actually pioneered in 2004 by a Labour Government. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may have got Tony Blair to take part in his election campaign, but it is a shame he cannot get behind Tony Blair’s policies.

During the pandemic, we marvelled at the courage and commitment of so many people: all the people working in our public services, from the extraordinary men and women in our NHS, risking their lives to save others, to those toiling to keep our country going, whether in schools or shops, or on public transport. It is therefore right that this Government are now investing more in our NHS than any other Government in history, giving our NHS the funding it needs to help to clear the covid backlogs. We will also make sure that every penny is well spent. Whether through pop-up clinics in our communities, more face-to-face GP appointments, or new cancer screening machines, we maximise the ability of our NHS to check and treat its patients.

But when times are tough and families are facing such pressures, we must also cut the cost of government and cut the burdens that the Government place on taxpayers and citizens. We cannot have expensive delays in delivering passports and driving licences that see families stranded and unable to go on holiday and HGV drivers unable to transport goods around this country in the way that is so integral to the economy we need. We are going to fix that.

Let me send a clear message from this House today: this Government will tackle the post-covid “mañana” culture. We will take whatever steps are necessary to deliver for the British people, because the British people are not prepared to wait, and we share their impatience.

We will get through the aftershocks of covid, just as we got through covid, as I have told you, Mr Speaker, with every ounce of ingenuity, compassion and hard work. We will do so not by irresponsible spending that merely treats the symptoms of rising prices while creating an ever-bigger problem for tomorrow, but by urgently pressing on with our mission to create the high-wage, high-skilled jobs that will drive economic growth across the United Kingdom—the whole United Kingdom. That is the long-term, sustainable solution to ease the burden on families and businesses. That is the way to get our country back on track after the pandemic, to unite and to level up across our whole country, exactly as we promised. That is what this Queen’s Speech delivers. I commend it to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I now call the leader of the SNP, Ian Blackford.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is in breach of the House’s regulations for somebody to call someone else a criminal in this Chamber.

[Mr Speaker]

A particular Member was not referred to, as you know—[Interruption.] Just a minute—I do not think I need any help. What I would say is that we want moderate and tolerant language that does not bring the House into disrepute or expect those outside to copy the behaviour. I want good behaviour and moderate language. I want people to think before they speak. I call Ian Blackford.

[Hannah Bardell]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

No.

[Ian Blackford]

I agree with my hon. Friend. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

We don’t want to get into this.

[Ian Blackford]

I will come on to those points in a moment. Let me say respectfully, particularly to the hon. Members for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) and for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) that I think they know that a referendum will come.

Let me take the Speaker’s warnings about behaviour in this House and how we should all reflect on it and how we interact with each other. That applies across the House—I say that to my friend the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) on the Labour Front Bench, too. When we have that referendum, it is incumbent on us all to engage constructively.

Let us examine, and by all means pull apart, the arguments for and against Scottish independence, but let us treat the electorate with respect. Let us trust the electorate who have given the Scottish Government a mandate to have that referendum. [Hon. Members: “2014!”] I hear what Members say about 2014. The whole point is that the electorate are given a choice in an election to elect a Government—and a Government with a mandate for an independence referendum. Let us not forget that, in 2014, we were explicitly told that if we stayed in the United Kingdom our rights as European citizens would be respected. What did this House do to Scotland? This House took Scotland out of the European Union against its will, and it is perfectly right that, under those circumstances, the people of Scotland have the right to revisit whether they wish to become independent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Blackford]

I have to make progress.

Just as this Queen’s Speech seeks to entrench—[Interruption.] I hear the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) saying, “Scotland doesn’t want out.” I hope he rises to speak at some point in the Queen’s Speech debate and tries to defend that. I say to him, as I do to the Prime Minister, that we have the mandate for an independence referendum. If he does not think that we will win it, let’s bring it on! I tell you what, Mr Speaker: he will soon find that Scotland will vote for independence.

Just as this Queen’s Speech seeks to entrench Brexit Britain, our Scottish Parliament will bring forward legislation that offers a very different future to our people: a positive and progressive future at the heart of Europe. We are not seeking the Prime Minister’s permission; the only permission that we need—[Interruption.] There we are: we can see that the Prime Minister could not care less; he is talking to his friends on the Government Front Bench. That is the disdain that we see for the people of Scotland from this Government. They simply could not care less. The only permission we will ever need is the democratic permission of the Scottish people.

Let us not forget that it is the people of Scotland who hold sovereignty. Let us not forget—the Prime Minister might want to listen to this—the legal opinion in the case of MacCormick v. the Crown at the Court of Session in 1953, when Lord Cooper stated:

“The principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law.”

It is unquestionably the right of those in Scotland to determine their own future. Those rights were enshrined in the claim of right that was so instrumental in delivering our devolved Parliament, and that is the case today as we seek to exercise our rights in an independence referendum.

Let me remind the Prime Minister of the words of Parnell, who used to sit on these very Benches. He said:

“No man has a right to fix the boundary of the march of a nation; no man has a right to say to his country—thus far shalt thou go and no further.”

Time and again, the people of Scotland have spoken, and they want us to choose our own future. They spoke at the last Holyrood election, and they spoke again last Thursday. The longer Scottish democracy speaks, the louder it will get. If the Conservatives want to stand in the way—if they want to try to deny democracy—they should be well warned that democracy will sweep them away, just as their party was swept away last week.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House, Sir Peter Bottomley.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I will.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Jim Shannon—welcome back.

Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 21st April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before we begin, I believe it would assist the House if I remind Members of the decision in question and the procedure on this motion. The decision before the House is whether or not to refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges at this time. It will be for the Committee to report back on whether it considers there has been a contempt. While it is perfectly in order for hon. Members to question the veracity of the Prime Minister’s responses to the House cited in the motion, it is not in order to challenge more generally the truthfulness of the Prime Minister or any other hon. or right hon. Member. Good temper and moderation must be maintained in parliamentary language.

Much of what might be said today has already been said in response to the Prime Minister’s statement on Tuesday. Previous debates on such motions have been relatively short. Since 2010, the longest such debate has been for one hour and 29 minutes, and debates have been as short as seven minutes. That said, an amendment has been selected and the motion is of great importance. The debate may continue for as long as it takes unless either there is a successful closure motion to bring the debate to an end or we reach 5 o’clock, in which case the debate will be adjourned to a future day. I would also say that if the debate becomes very repetitive, we may have to consider whether to do closure earlier, but I will leave that to how the debate develops. Any Members who wish to speak need to stand to ensure that they catch my eye at the beginning of the debate.

The right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) has tabled a motion for debate on the matter of privilege, which I have agreed should take precedence today. I inform the House that although I have selected the amendment in the name of the Minister for the Cabinet Office, I understand that it is now the Government’s intention not to move it. I call Keir Starmer to move the motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I lost my mother to covid in the first lockdown. It was a very painful experience because she was in a hospital bed and, as we obeyed the rules, we could not be by her side when she passed. I have made my disquiet known to the Prime Minister a couple of times, and he has taken that on board. I am deeply unhappy about how No. 10 performed over the period in question. However, I suggest to the right hon. and learned Member that it is perfectly natural in this country to weigh all the evidence before deciding on intent. As the central issue is whether the Prime Minister misled Parliament, does he agree that, in us all accepting that the matter should be referred to the Privileges Committee, that Committee needs to weigh all the evidence before coming to a decision, and that that includes the Sue Gray report?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I say to Members that interventions are meant to be short? If you are on the list to speak and you intervene—I know that the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) is not and would not want to be as he has made his speech—you will go down the list.

[Keir Starmer]

I am sorry for the loss in the hon. Member’s family. We all send our condolences. I know how difficult it has been for so many during this period. In relation to the substantive intervention, I have two points, which I will develop later. First, there is already a clear case before the House: the Prime Minister said “no…rules were broken”, and 50 fines for breaking the rules and the law have already been issued, so there is already a reasonable case. Secondly—I understand the sentiment behind the intervention—if the motion is passed, the Committee will not begin its substantive work until the police investigations are complete, so it will have all the evidence before it, one way or the other, to come to a view. That is within the body of the motion and is the right way; the way it should work. I hope that addresses the concerns raised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Starmer]

That is a shame. I thought that we were having a reasonably serious debate—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan) needs to sit down. In fairness to the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), he has taken a lot of interventions, but I certainly do not need her standing up and waiting to catch somebody’s eye.

[Keir Starmer]

If the debate descends into a shouting match, Mr Speaker, we lose the principle that is there to defend all of us, including all the Conservative Members. We are not claiming a principle to support those on the Opposition Benches and not those on the Government Benches; it is a principle that supports us all. If we fail—

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Starmer]

I agree. We have a duty here today, in relation to this motion and these principles. If we fail in that duty, the public will not forgive and forget, because this will be the Parliament that failed—failed to stand up for honesty, integrity and telling the truth in politics; failed to stand up to a Prime Minister who seeks to turn our good faith against us; and failed to stand up for our great democracy.

It is not just the eyes of our country that are upon us. There will also be the judgment of future generations, who will look back at what Members of this great House did when our customs were tested, when its traditions were pushed to breaking point, and when we were called to stand up for honesty, for integrity and for truth.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

Part of this is about the Prime Minister. My habit over 46 years has been not to make a public or private comment about a party leader, whether mine or someone else’s, and I do not propose to change that now. If I have something to say to a Prime Minister, I say it directly, as I did first with Harold Wilson, and have done with most other Prime Ministers since then.

My preference would be to back the amendment, but if it is not going to be moved, I cannot do so. This is not the right time for the House to make a decision. The words in the amendment are ones that I would support, and I am sorry that the House will not be able to consider them. I may be in the minority in that, but that is not a problem in the House; it happens to a lot of people.

The words in the third paragraph of the Prime Minister’s statement on Tuesday spell out the situation: he said that he did not think, in effect, that it was a party, or that the rules had been broken. He now accepts that the situation has been judged differently by the police. I do not think we should build a great big cake on top of that admission and acceptance; the House would do better to leave it like that.

It would also be better—I am not challenging you, Mr Speaker—if the House decided that the reference to the Committee on Privileges should be made when all the information is available from the Cabinet Office report and the results of the police investigation.

The last thing I want to say—without attacking the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting)—is that those who heard the “Today” programme this morning heard repeated references to the local government elections on 5 May. Whatever the Leader of the Opposition says, part of what is before the House today is a straightforward attempt to gain party political advantage, and I intend to have no part of that.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the leader of the Scottish National party, Ian Blackford.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Blackford]

I will come on to that in a little more detail, but the Tory MPs who are here, and those who are not here for whatever reason, should show some moral fibre and show a backbone. They should recognise what this Prime Minister is doing to the very fabric of our democracy. Today of all days, they should do the right thing and support this motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition and of the leaders of so many other parties in this House.

We should not forget that, when the Tories put this Prime Minister into Downing Street nearly three years ago—[Interruption.] Actually it was the Conservatives who elected Boris Johnson as their leader. The important fact is that the Tories knew exactly the kind of person they were putting into the highest office in the land. They knew his track record; they knew his character; they knew who he was and what he was; and they still chose him as their leader. Conservative Members know better than anyone else in the House that a trail of scandal and lawbreaking was always going to define his time in office.

In three short years, those who made those predications have unfortunately not been disappointed. The sleaze and the scandal has been ten a penny. From lying to the Queen to illegally proroguing Parliament—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We have to be careful. I have asked for moderate, more temperate language. I am not having the Queen brought into it. Withdraw that point.

[Ian Blackford]

In deference to you, Mr Speaker, I will do so.

Let us not forget the fact that the Prime Minister was found by the highest court in the land to have illegally prorogued this Parliament.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I said this at the beginning, and I know the right hon. Gentleman will want to stick to what I said. We cannot go beyond the terms of the debate. I know he is very good and can stick to the script that I have explained.

[Ian Blackford]

I will happily take your guidance, Mr Speaker. Of course, we will reflect on the Supreme Court’s judgment.

Stuffing the House of Lords with Tory party donors, VIP lanes for covid contracts, and even dodgy donations to decorate Downing Street—this is who the Prime Minister is. It is who he has always been. As Prime Minister, he has done exactly what it says on the tin. The real point is that as the days pass with him staying in power, it is who the entire Conservative party has become.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Blackford]

How we get confession from a Prime Minister who denies everything, I just do not know.

Mr Speaker, I know you will understand that I cannot let this moment pass without a special word for the spineless Scottish Tories. In fairness, the Scottish Tory leader is probably the only person in the Conservative party who finds himself in a deeper hole than the Prime Minister. In fact, he is so far down a political hole that he obviously found it impossible to dig his way out and make it down to London to vote his boss out tonight. I understand that plenty of people back home are looking forward to the Scottish Tories being given a straight red in the council elections in a few weeks. [Interruption.] There we go again. I hope people in Scotland are watching, because what we see is the Conservatives trying to shout down parliamentarians in this House. That is what is happening.

For most people, it is very understandable—[Interruption.] There is Scotland’s answer from the Tories: “Let’s shout Scotland down.” That is what they are doing this afternoon. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Can we just calm down? I want to hear the right hon. Gentleman, and I know he wants to get back on track. He does not want to distract from this important debate.

[Ian Blackford]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

It is understandable that most people’s main reaction to the flip-flopping Scottish Tory leader and his support for the Prime Minister is disbelief and justified anger. I have to admit that, when I reflect on the position of the Scottish Tory leader, my main reaction is something I know he will appreciate far less. I actually feel sorry for him, because he is by no means the first person to have his career ruined by the Prime Minister. That pile of people is a mountain high. Everybody, and I mean everybody, is eventually thrown under the Boris bus. As we saw yesterday, not even the Archbishop of Canterbury is safe. Clearly, the days of the Church of England being the Conservative party at prayer are long gone. The Prime Minister’s party is obviously praying to another god these days, although no doubt even that will not guarantee its salvation.

But in all seriousness, that unjustified attack on the archbishop gives another toxic insight into the thinking and methodology of this Prime Minister. His modus operandi is very simple: when he finds himself under political pressure, he finds someone else to blame—anyone else, just as long as he never takes responsibility himself, because nothing and nobody else matters. The only thing that does matter is that this Prime Minister will stop at nothing to save his own skin. That is why Conservative Members should not save him today. Think about it: he would not even lift his finger to help them. So if they have any self-respect, they need to ask themselves why they should even be contemplating walking through the Lobby for him.

Let me end on this point. It might surprise hon. Members to hear, from a party that is unapologetically seeking out of this very institution and out of this Parliament, that I actually do care how it acts and operates, and about the values it holds. I care deeply for this reason. Today’s motion is not just about this Parliament or about this place. We should all know by now that democracy and decency are under assault the world over. If we fail to defend these values in every single institution we are part of, these values will decay and decline. It was George Orwell who famously said:

“Political chaos is connected with the decay of language”.

I know that people are deeply fearful about just how real that prophesy has felt in the last few years because, when language decays, so does the truth and so does trust in our politics. A Prime Minister who cannot be trusted with the truth marks the end of that dangerous decline. So if today is about anything, it has to be about finally ending that decline.

That decline did not start with this Prime Minister, but it needs to end with him. We should all be very clear as to what the consequences are if this House fails to act today. If we don’t act—if we don’t stop—this Parliament will be endorsing a new normal in this Parliament and across our politics: a new normal where no one is held responsible, no one is held to account and no one ever resigns. That is exactly why this motion matters, because it can and it will only ever become a new normal if we put up with it. It only becomes normal if those responsible are not held to account and are not made to answer for their actions. So I genuinely say to Members from across the House, but especially those Members opposite: if they have any interest in maintaining some dignity and decency in public life, they should finally hold this Prime Minister to account for his actions and remove him from office. They should support this motion, they should submit their letters of no confidence and they should finally show this Prime Minister the door.

[Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)]

Thank you for calling me so early in this debate to deliver my sermon, Mr Speaker. If I may, by means of parish notices, let me wish Her Majesty a happy 96th birthday.

My intention was to vote against the Government’s amendment and that would still be my intention were it to be moved. I appreciate the efforts by my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip to find a way through—he is somebody we are lucky to have in his role—but we were at risk of making a mistake. The original motion is perfectly acceptable and allows for much of the spirit of the amendment. For example, the publication of the Gray report would be automatic upon the conclusion of the Metropolitan police’s work. There was no need to complicate matters.

The Ukraine situation is of huge importance, but the invasion of a sovereign nation by a dictatorial aggressor should not be a reason why we should accept lower standards ourselves. I have told the Prime Minister to his face that I think he is doing a good job in robustly supporting the Ukrainian Government. Her Majesty’s Government, along with our nation, can be proud of their role and generosity. Let us give credit where credit is due. However, much as I may have tried, I cannot reconcile myself to the Prime Minister’s continued leadership of our country and the Conservative party. I say this by means of context, so that everyone, particularly my constituents and colleagues, can understand my position, without hiding my views with ever more elaborate disguises. To those constituents who disagree with me, I say that I appreciate their anger, just as I can appreciate the anger of colleagues. However, say what you mean and mean what you say.

I submitted my letter of no confidence to my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady) in December last year. I did so for the following reason. It followed the leak of the Allegra Stratton mock press conference video. I believe that in that video she did nothing wrong. She nervously laughed and sought to make light of an embarrassing situation. To see her crying on her doorstep, feeling the full weight of responsibility and anger of a country, was deeply moving and I felt immensely sorry for her. I hope that she is well and will be able to continue her distinguished career. But what alarmed me most was that, later that evening, a press preview of the winter covid plan B measures was brought forward to try to move matters on. We debated those measures at length, but we can agree, if not on their extent or importance, that they none the less sought to compel or restrict what people in this country could do. I therefore thought to myself: if a Government were prepared to bring such measures forward earlier in order to distract from their own embarrassment, the Prime Minister was no longer fit to govern.

I care deeply about my colleagues. I know that a number are struggling at the moment. We have been working in a toxic atmosphere. The parliamentary party bears the scars of misjudgments of leadership. There can be few colleagues on this side of the House who are truly enjoying being Members of Parliament at the moment. It is utterly depressing to be asked to defend the indefensible. Each time, part of us withers.

I have questioned my place in this party in recent months and perhaps that is symptomatic of a swathe of our voters in the country, but I tell them firmly that I am not going anywhere and I urge them to stick with us in the forthcoming elections. But for us to maintain their trust and confidence, we must be seen to do the right thing. It is our responsibility—it is the Conservative parliamentary party’s responsibility. We must stop delegating and delaying our political judgment. We each only have our own limited and imperfect integrity. We cannot keep spending it on others whom we cannot be sure will not let us down.

I have great empathy for all those who worked at No. 10 and in the Cabinet Office. They bore an immense burden and worked under the most intense pressure. They worked hard and made sacrifices. I extend that same empathy to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who knows more than most the personal challenges and personal battles that came from the pandemic. But the matter before us is one at the heart of this institution, of our Parliament.

I love this place, believing it to be a place of high ideals and purpose. What is said here matters. Quite apart from the Facebook clips about roundabouts and drains in our constituencies, or indeed the confected anger to wind people up, it should be a place venerated by those of us given the singular honour of being sent here. Of course it can be a pantomime, a farce, turgidly boring and obscure, but it should always be reasonably honest. It is for that, I hope not naive, principle that I cannot support the amendment and I will vote for the motion. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Come on, Mr McDonnell—you have been here longer than most people! We do not want to clap after every speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Member makes a good point. We have had some discussions about that issue outside the Chamber. The difficulty is that I am not sure that is a matter for the Standards Committee or the Privileges Committee; I think it is a matter for the Committee on Procedure. There is a good argument for putting something in place so that there is a right of reply. I cannot go further, for reasons of which the hon. Gentleman may be aware—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I do not want to open up that area of debate. I know exactly what is going on—we can leave that part of it there.

[Chris Bryant]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

My second point about fair process is that it is actually quite a high bar that the Privileges Committee will have to consider. As the Leader of the Opposition said earlier, I do not think it is debated that the House was misled. I think even the Prime Minister admits, in effect, that the House was misled. It was said that rules were not broken and it is self-evident that rules were broken, so the House was misled—it got a false impression. The question is whether that was intentional. The Committee will have to devise ways to investigate whether there was an intention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I think the hon. Gentleman is agreeing with me, so—

[Mr Speaker]

We will leave it at that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Hammond]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Unless I misheard the right hon. Gentleman, he has just said that I wrote something—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. He says he did not, so that clears that mess up.

[Ed Davey]

Instead, Conservative MPs have so far ducked their responsibility, only eroding that public trust and confidence even further.

The Solicitor General, for example, once said that his red line for resignation from the Government was if there was a “scintilla of a suggestion” of unlawful action. Well, the Prime Minister has been fined by the police, yet the hon. and learned Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) is still drawing his Government salary. By keeping the Prime Minister in his job, Conservative MPs have made themselves guilty by association. They should know that if they vote to kick the can down the road again, if they vote to bend the rules to let one of their own off the hook again, if they do not hold this Prime Minister to account for his law-breaking and lies by voting him out, their constituents will hold them to account at the ballot box.

Perhaps the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) should listen to the vet in his constituency who says:

“If I broke the rules and lied about it, I would get struck off. So why hasn’t the Prime Minister been?”

Lifelong Conservative voters in Guildford are saying they cannot vote for the Conservatives any more. Conservative Members complain about elections; the problem is that if they will not hold this Prime Minister to account, the electorate will have to hold this Prime Minister to account.

A constituent of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) tells me that his MP—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are mentioning a load of Members and Members’ constituents. I hope the Members were notified that they were going to be namechecked.

[Ed Davey]

I am sorry but I have not notified them. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Shh. So I would suggest that we do not name any more unless the Members are aware of it. It is only fair that we do that.

[Ed Davey]

I take your ruling, Mr Speaker. I was quoting from their constituents. That was the point, so that their voices could be heard in this House.

The past 24 hours have shown that the Government are in total disarray. Conservative MPs are clearly too ashamed to back the Prime Minister but still too complicit to sack him. The people each of us represent know the truth. They know the Prime Minister deliberately misled them and deliberately misled this House. It is an insult to their constituents, especially bereaved families in their seats, and it will be another Conservative stain on our democracy. If Conservative Members fail to sack this Prime Minister, they will leave the British people no choice. In the council elections on 5 May, let alone the next general election, it will become the patriotic duty of every voter to send this Conservative Government a message that enough is enough by voting against them. The Prime Minister has held this House, and the whole country, in contempt for far too long. Now it must be this House’s turn to hold him in contempt.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 20th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Alok Sharma]

Of course, we want an expansion of renewables across the country, but I point my hon. Friend to the energy security strategy, which sets out our plan to ensure more rooftop solar, not just on commercial buildings but on public sector property.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister, Dr Alan Whitehead.

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

The COP26 President acknowledges the tremendous contribution that solar has made and can make to the achievement of our net zero goals. I am sure that he also acknowledges that it is now one of the renewables that is cheapest and most quickly installed, so why are the Government ignoring its future development, having devastated the industry a few years back by precipitously withdrawing all support for development, and doing nothing to ease the penal planning restrictions on both domestic and ground-mounted solar installations? He says merely that he expects installations to increase fivefold by 2035, but without providing any support to allow that expectation to become a reality. Is it not time that the Government took seriously the contribution that solar can make to net zero targets?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alok Sharma]

My right hon. Friend raises an important point. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and his Ministers are, of course, working on that. Again, at an international level, we are looking to start an agriculture breakthrough, so that we have a global focus on this issue.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson, Deidre Brock.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

Facebook promoted ads containing outright climate falsehoods and scepticism during COP26, and it is reported that fossil fuel companies and lobbying groups spent an estimated $574,000 on Facebook ads during the summit, resulting in more than 22 million impressions. Many of these ads were directly aimed at undermining efforts to achieve climate progress. Does the COP26 President agree that the best way such businesses can help in the fight against climate change is to put the planet before their profits and come down hard on the climate naysayers? What action has he been taking to address that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alok Sharma]

The hon. Gentleman has eloquently raised a number of domestic policy issues and I know that the Energy Minister would be happy to write to him on all of them.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow COP26 President.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

The recent climate assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was deeply worrying, saying that current global policies will lead to warming of more than 3°, but it also offered hope in the dramatic fall in the price of renewables, which means they are now the right choice for cheap energy and to tackle the climate crisis. Given that onshore wind is the cheapest, cleanest, quickest form of power to deliver and is also supported by a large majority of the public in the UK, will the COP26 President explain why the Government persist—including in their recent strategy—with planning policies that in effect block onshore wind in England?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alok Sharma]

As I have said, we want to see a managed transition. That is not going to happen overnight. My right hon. Friend will also know that we have set out in our domestic energy security strategy that future licensing rounds will have to be compatible with the climate compatibility checkpoint, which will be set out shortly.

[Mr Speaker]

Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I would like to point out that a British Sign Language interpretation of proceedings is available to watch on parliamentlive.tv.

The Prime Minister was asked—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend. He is a great champion for rural Cumbria and for bus services. He is right that Cumbria got another £1.5 million for buses. We want to put more into buses—I believe in them passionately myself—and I will ensure he has a meeting with the relevant Minister.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the Leader of the Opposition, Keir Starmer.

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

I join the Prime Minister in wishing Her Majesty a happy birthday.

Why did the Prime Minister’s press secretary Allegra Stratton have to resign from her job?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, Mr Speaker, I have been absolutely clear that I humbly accept what the police have said. I have paid the fixed penalty notice. What I think the country, and the whole House, would really rather do is get on with the things for which we were elected and deliver on our promises to the British people. [Interruption.] You could not have clearer evidence of the intellectual bankruptcy of Labour. [Interruption.]They have no plans for energy, they have no plans for social care—

[Mr Speaker]

Order.

[The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)]

And they have no plans to fix the economy.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Prime Minister, sit down. I want to hear what you have got to say, but I cannot hear when you talk in that way. I am here in the Chair: please, if you can help me.

[The Prime Minister]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

No, I think we have had enough.

[Keir Starmer]

The state of it—the party of Peel and Churchill reduced to shouting and screaming in defence of this lawbreaker. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Now then, that is the last time. That Peroni that was just asked about—the hon. Member might have to go and take it. I do not want to hear any more, or else they will be drinking it.

[Keir Starmer]

Yesterday’s apology lasted for as long as the Prime Minister thought necessary to be clipped for the news. But once the cameras were off, the Prime Minister went to see his Back Benchers and he was back to blaming everyone else. He even said that the Archbishop of Canterbury had not been critical enough of Putin. In fact, the archbishop called Putin’s war

“an act of great evil”,

and the Church of England has led the way in providing refuge to those fleeing. Would the Prime Minister like to take this opportunity to apologise for slandering the archbishop and the Church of England?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

How many has he had? Mr Speaker —[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Prime Minister, just a second. I want to hear the Prime Minister’s answers. I expect it both ways.

[The Prime Minister]

It is an indication of the depths to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman is willing to sink that he accuses me—[Interruption.] He accuses me of traducing journalists. What he says is completely without any foundation whatever. I did not attack the BBC last night for their coverage of Ukraine. He must be out of his tiny mind. I said no such thing, and there are people behind me who will testify to that. He is completely wrong. That is the limit of his willingness to ask sensible questions today.

This Government are getting on with the serious problems that require attention, such as fixing our energy supply issues and, by the way, undoing the damage of the Labour Government, who did not invest in nuclear power for 13 years, with a nuclear power station every year. We are standing up to Putin, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have elected a Putin apologist—that is what he wanted to do, and he campaigned to do that. We are fixing our economy, with record numbers of people now in work, productivity back above what it was, and over half a million more people on the payroll than there were before the pandemic began. That is as a result of the decisions—the tough calls—that this Government have made. We get on with the job, while they flip-flop around like flounders on the beach.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend. I am very pleased to hear about the work that Govox is doing to support mental health and wellbeing, and we are putting more money into mental healthcare support—an extra £2.3 billion a year in the next financial year, which of course we can supply thanks to the decisions taken by this Government, which the Labour party opposed.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the leader of the SNP, Ian Blackford.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

May I join the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in wishing Her Majesty the Queen best wishes for her birthday tomorrow?

Last night, the Prime Minister may have convinced his Back Benchers and his spineless Scottish Tories to keep him in place for another few weeks, but the public are not so easily fooled. Eighty-two per cent. of people in Scotland said that they believed the Prime Minister lied to this Parliament, and to the public, about his law-breaking covid parties. Are they right, or should they not believe their lying eyes?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q6. This Conservative Government are raising taxes on working people in the middle of a cost of living crisis. May I press the Prime Minister on whether he agrees that it would add insult to injury if his Chancellor or any other Government Ministers were to benefit from overseas tax havens in their personal tax affairs?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. You are not responsible for that, Prime Minister.

[The Prime Minister]

Good point, Mr Speaker, but we are responsible for cutting taxes for everybody, which is what we are actually doing.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

When are the Scottish people going to hear—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Prime Minister, sit down.

[The Prime Minister]

Sorry, Mr Speaker. When are the Scottish people going to hear an ounce of sense from the Scottish nationalist—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Prime Minister, we cannot both stand up at the same time. I am trying to be helpful. We have got to be more moderate in the type of language used. “Pinocchio” is not acceptable. I am sure the hon. Member wishes to withdraw it quickly.

[Richard Thomson]

Mr Speaker, I withdraw that, but he packs his bags and goes.

[Hon. Members]

That is not a withdrawal.

[Mr Speaker]

You have withdrawn it?

[Richard Thomson]

I withdraw.

[Mr Speaker]

Withdrawn. Let’s get on. Prime Minister.

[The Prime Minister]

Sorry, Mr Speaker, but I do not know what the question is, because the hon. Gentleman has withdrawn it. The answer is that we are going to get on with the job, and it would be nice to hear an ounce of sense from the Scottish nationalist party, or see some competent government.