Debate on the Address

Marie Rimmer Excerpts

Wednesday 17th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). May I congratulate all Members who have been returned to the House of Commons, and in particularly I congratulate and welcome all the new Members. I wish them every success and happiness in their time in the House.

The Humble Address was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd), a great friend of mine, and seconded by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi). They are both warm, kind people—probably the two kindest I know in the House—and their speeches were very warm, very humorous and very interesting. That was the highlight of the day, in my view. I must thank, in particular, my constituents in St Helens South and Whiston for returning me once again. It is a great honour to represent the town in which I was born, and in which I hope to die, and to represent those great people who have worked so hard during their lives.

For too long, social care and the needs of elderly and vulnerable patients have not been adequately considered, but social care is just as important as our national health service. Indeed, the NHS has suffered greatly from the lack of appropriate and necessary recognition and consideration of social care within Government. We have heard time and again about record waiting lists, patients being treated in hospital corridors, and ambulances carrying patients having to queue for hours outside A&E. According to a communication from the North West Ambulance Service, 30-odd ambulances had been stuck in Whiston hospital car park. The hospital had already turned a corridor into a ward and was doing everything it could, but the ambulances were still stuck in the car park. This is simply because hospitals are over capacity—and Whiston has been well over 100% capacity on many occasions. It is a very popular and very good hospital, but it is overstretched.

Elderly and chronically sick people are not being given the dignity that they deserve. At times, unsafe discharges have occurred in various hospitals, and that needs to change. There is a new term now: it is not “bed-blocking”, but “accommodation not clinically needed”. Social care must be fixed and properly financed, and it must be truly affordable for people to use. The pressure that the NHS is under will only be fixed if social care is fixed as well. Because of the wonders of modern medicine, people are living longer, but that often brings with it multiple complex needs. Our care system has not kept up with these changes.

Families care, and they also need support. Care staff cannot leave a sick person alone waiting for an ambulance. Often they wait for hours, which has a knock-on effect on shift patterns and, ultimately, on other patients who are waiting for the care and support that they need. Elderly and vulnerable patients should not be left waiting for food, medicine and personal care. The NHS and the care sector need to be better integrated, in order to stop situations like that arising. Care homes and nursing homes are also closing, so, again, there is a lack of capacity leading to unsafe discharges. The sector is in crisis, and patients are suffering.

When it comes to adult social care reform, priority must be given to treating patients at home where they feel comfortable, with their families around them and with their neighbours popping in. That is essential, both to protect hospital bed capacity and to give elderly and disabled people the dignity they deserve and the ability to stay in the homes they love in familiar surroundings. Most of the care, and even some of the medical and clinical treatments, can be given at home—I have witnessed this—and that can free up NHS bed capacity for those who need the beds to receive treatment that they cannot receive at home.

The current system of relying on local authorities whose budgets have been cut for more than a decade is not good enough. Even with the additional social care levy, local authorities are struggling to cope. The levy is based on council tax levels, so the areas with the lowest returns will receive a pittance. It is in those areas that more people need care and support. According to the Local Government Association, 57% of council tax already goes on social care. It is not sustainable, because there is less and less money, and more and more people. We live longer now, and we will continue to live longer in the long term, so the problem will only continue to get worse.

Social care should be financed nationally, and it should follow the needs of patients. We cannot give a quota of money when there are hundreds of people in one borough, and perhaps 100 in another borough, needing support; it needs to follow the needs of the patient. One of the sector’s major problems is hiring and retaining care workers, who do an incredibly difficult job. They are absolute angels, who look after our elderly relatives and loved ones with love and compassion. Social care should be promoted as a valued service, and professionals in the sector deserve recognition and respect, yet the pay and terms and conditions need to match the duties we ask of them. The whole sector needs a rework to ensure that it pays fairly and offers progression, so that staff can afford to stay in the job that they love and want to do. They should be valued.

Labour has promised, rightly, to set up a national care service, thereby finally putting care on a par with the NHS, because it needs to be a modern healthcare system. There needs to be sector of social and healthcare professions. The reforms need to look at the funding model, at-home treatment, staffing issues and, crucially, the integration with the NHS.

Tributes to Sir Tony Lloyd

Marie Rimmer Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

It has been a real comfort to me to listen to so many tributes for such a wonderful man that I have the highest respect for. I had the pleasure of knowing Tony for many years and it was a joy to work together in Parliament after decades of friendship. He was such a kind, caring, compassionate man. Tony could not help himself from helping others. Every day was a day of action to help others to make life and things better. Only last month, I was at the all-party parliamentary group on Belarus—he corrected me on how I pronounce that—which was chaired by Tony, and he was fighting as passionately as ever for a free and democratic Belarus. That was just last month. Tony was kind and softly spoken yet so strong in his beliefs, and actions always followed them up. He was a dear friend to so many people and so well respected, and I am privileged to be one of those people. I always enjoyed chatting over a drink of tea in the Tea Room, and we would have many a laugh. I will miss Tony, my real friend. God bless Tony and God bless his family—may you take the same comfort that I have here today listening to so many well-deserved tributes.

Procurement Bill [Lords]

Marie Rimmer Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 13th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty Blackman]

I think the right hon. Member makes a reasonable and proportionate suggestion. Although we disagree on lots of things, I am very surprised to find myself agreeing with him for the second time this week on this. I do appreciate his suggestion, and I hope those on his Front Bench are listening to the advice he has given.

I am not going to test the House’s patience by dragging this out. We will be voting with the Labour party against the Government’s motion to disagree, because we believe that the more stringent controls are something it is absolutely reasonable for us to ask of companies. This is not for all companies, as I have said, but just for those that hope to get Government contracts.

[Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

In this week of all weeks, the House needs to show that our democracy is strong and that we are not intimidated by other nations. The Chinese Communist party has shown that it holds our democracy in contempt. Today we have an opportunity to put tough talk into action.

Forced organ harvesting is a systemic trade that is taking place on an industrial scale in China. Up to 100,000 of its citizens are butchered each year for their organs. This is a state-sponsored crime against humanity. The two or three organs harvested from a healthy young adult are worth over £500,000. Evidence of this crime has been extensively investigated by the China and Uyghur tribunals chaired by Sir Geoffrey Nice KC, the former lead prosecutor at The Hague. At the tribunals, evidence was heard of systematic medical testing of thousands of prisoners of conscience, allowing the oppressive regime to create an organ bank.

I have spoken extensively on the horrors that have occurred due to forced organ harvesting in previous stages of the Bill, so now I will address some of the concerns that the Government expressed in the other place when opposing the amendment. The Government claim that forced organ harvesting will be covered by existing provisions of the Bill. Certain conduct will absolutely not be covered by the existing provisions on professional misconduct. Supply chains can be complex, and improper conduct may often be one step too far removed from the crime for professional misconduct elements to be made out. Trying to cover all the different ethical and professional misconduct regulations across a multitude of industries is not practical. Only by having a specific provision for forced organ harvesting will we ensure that British taxpayers’ money is not funding this horrific trade. Otherwise, it will be all too easy for companies to hide behind complex supply chains.

The second issue that the Government raised in the other place was that there was no evidence of UK organisations facilitating forced organ harvesting, yet there are companies with substantial operations in the UK providing immunosuppressive drugs for transplants in China. There is evidence of companies dramatically raising their stake in the Chinese market over the past few years. Sources on the ground claim that CellCept, an immunosuppressive drug, has been used on Chinese prisoners for transplants. There is no evidence that those individuals consented.

That is why a clear and direct provision relating to forced organ harvesting is necessary. UK taxpayers’ money should not inadvertently be supporting this inhumane trade perpetrated by the Chinese Communist party. There must be the ability or at least the option to stop it. The amendment is not asking for draconian action. It simply gives discretionary powers to exclude a supplier from a procurement contract if there is a connection to forced organ harvesting. That would give the Government the ability to act to prevent the complicity of UK taxpayers in forced organ harvesting.

The amendment must be seen in the context of our country’s wider relationship with China. The Government have extensively talked tough about standing up for our values against China. China is a trading partner that we cannot ignore or close ourselves off to, but that does not mean that we should not take such opportunities as this amendment to do right by our values and by humanity. Only a couple of days ago, the Prime Minister told the Chinese Prime Minister that attempts to undermine British democracy are completely unacceptable and that we will defend our democracy and our security. The amendment gives us the opportunity to use our democracy—the democracy that they seem to hold in contempt—to stand up for our values against China.

I urge colleagues across the House to take this opportunity to send a clear message to the Chinese Communist party, in this week of all weeks, that this House will stand up for our values by keeping Lords amendment 102B in the Bill.

[Alex Burghart]

With the leave of the House, I thank all Members who have made points in this important debate. Let me remind colleagues that the exclusion grounds in the Bill have been selected in the areas of greatest risk to public procurement. I return to the point I made at the start: there is fortunately no single known instance of such practice in the UK public procurement chain. We do not see it as a great risk to public procurement. I welcome the hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) to her place and her new role, and I look forward to debating with her and working with her in the weeks and months ahead.

Security Update

Marie Rimmer Excerpts

Monday 11th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise all of those points. It is the case, not just in respect of China but also of Russia—particularly in light of the Russia-Ukraine war—and, indeed, Iran and other hostile states that the threat landscape is increasing, and the Government have to continually increase their actions. Through the creation of the National Cyber Security Centre and its work with GCHQ, we are able to constantly increase our action in respect of cyber-threats, malware and the other threats that my hon. Friend highlighted, and in respect of physical security, we have a mirror in the National Protective Security Authority working with MI5. In turn, the agencies also work with the Parliamentary Security Department, which deals directly with threats to Members of Parliament and is supported by those agencies and others.

[Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

The Chinese Communist party has shown once again that it will stop at nothing to get its way. The Deputy Prime Minister has said today that he realises there are serious issues and that this is a systemic challenge, but he would not come out with a statement that it is a serious threat and being treated as such. The CCP is infiltrating our academia, and a lot of people right across these Benches feel very uneasy. Actions speak louder than words, and the Government need to back up words with actions—strong actions—and give us the impression that they are not being dragged by the heels all the time. We are constantly having to raise these things, and there is no confidence that we are treating the CCP as an absolutely serious threat, which is what it is. We are playing cricket while the CCP has the machetes out. Please, please take some urgent action.

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

We have been totally clear-eyed about the threats represented by China, and have been robust in the action we have taken. The hon. Lady talks about higher education: we have passed legislation in respect of higher education, the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023. That Act requires greater transparency about higher education institutions’ sources of funding, including from overseas states and hostile states. We are taking exactly the kind of action that she requests.

Procurement Bill [Lords]

Marie Rimmer Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 13th June 2023 Commons Chamber

I hope the Minister will consider that these amendments are constructive efforts to tighten up some of the drafting in the Bill and to make sure that the exclusions and debarring will work in practice in the way we hope.

[Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

This House, this country and the British public have a long history of supporting human rights. That is why I rise to support amendment 3 in my name. It is signed by Members from across this House.

Up to 100,000 people are brutally butchered for their organs in the People’s Republic of China. It is industrial-scale, state-sponsored organ harvesting, now a nationwide industry worth more than £800 million. The average age of victims is 28. That is not a mere coincidence: 28 is considered by the Chinese Communist party to be the best age for organ harvesting. Hundreds of thousands are kept in internment camps until they are ripe for slaughter. Two or three organs from healthy young adults—28—are worth up to half a million pounds.

The evidence for this crime is growing by the day. The China and Uyghur tribunals, chaired by Sir Geoffrey Nice KC, former lead prosecutor at The Hague, concluded that Falun Gong, a peaceful religious movement, was the primary target. Worse still, the Chinese Communist authorities have now added the Uyghurs in Xinjiang, some Christians and other prisoners of conscience. The tribunals heard reliable evidence of Uyghur Muslims being subjected to comprehensive blood testing and the collection of DNA, which would allow the oppressive regime to create an organ bank, ready for withdrawals on demand.

Forced organ harvesting is an evil practice that this Government should be doing all they can to stop. At present, there are no specific restrictions on suppliers who are involved in forced organ harvesting. In Committee in the Lords, the Minister stated that this Bill was not the appropriate place to address this issue. I could not disagree more. The hard-earned money of our constituents is free to be used propping up this evil atrocity, but that is not right in a country that prides itself on supporting human rights. We all have a duty to our constituents to make sure they are not inadvertently supporting organ harvesting, or any crime indeed. The Minister also said that forced organ harvesting would already be covered on the grounds of professional misconduct. We have heard that before, only for it to turn out, once a Bill becomes law, that it is not covered. On professional misconduct, may I provide just one example? Once when a surgeon was removing organs, he noticed—he went into a cold sweat—that the body he was operating on was in shock: he was still alive. Professional misconduct!

Forced organ harvesting is not an issue to take such a chance on; it needs specific references relating to this crime against humanity. Last month’s G7 heard our Prime Minister state that we need to work together with our allies to “de-risk” ourselves from China. In the United States, Congressman Chris Smith has introduced a Stop Forced Organ Harvesting Bill, which the House of Representatives almost unanimously supported—straight across. This amendment keeps us in line with our allies. Last November, the Prime Minister delivered his big foreign policy speech and said, on our relationship with China, that

“we will make an evolutionary leap in our approach. This means being stronger in defending our values… And it means standing up to our competitors, not with grand rhetoric but with robust pragmatism.”

This amendment is robust pragmatism in practice. It is not grand rhetoric, but action— action to make sure we are strong in defending our values; action to make sure public money is not supporting a crime against humanity; action that this whole House can be proud of, as it always has been on human rights.

I urge Members from across the House to support amendment 3 to keep our hands clean from this evil practice of forced organ harvesting. We must not continue to turn a blind eye to these horrendous breaches of human rights. Governments across the world need to step up on this. We need to be working together, for—believe you me—China would be far more difficult than Russia.

[Kirsty Blackman]

It has been an incredibly wide-ranging debate. Everyone has had the opportunity to speak on their own amendments and I find myself trying to speak on everyone’s amendments. I will do my best but if I miss anyone’s it is not personal—it is just that there are a lot of them. I will try to focus on those we are expected to vote on and some that we feel most passionately about.

I was glad to hear the Minister talking about the positions of the Welsh and Scottish Parliaments and recognising that they are consistent with previous positions on trade deals. We consistently believe there is overreach in extending into devolved areas and that is why legislative consent has been withheld on this occasion. Since Brexit particularly, the UK Parliament has been meddling in devolved areas, or allowing itself the power to do so, far more than previously. That is one of the many unfortunate consequences of “bringing back power”: it is power to the Executive, not so much to the devolved Administrations or the rest of us in Parliament.

This Bill is key because the spending of taxpayers’ money for the benefit of, and on behalf of, taxpayers is a hugely powerful and important method the Government can use to ensure that they serve citizens in the best possible way, and that they support behaviours that they want to support and reject those they want to reject, in much the same way as tax laws and new tax measures can be created and implemented to discourage or encourage certain behaviours. There is an opportunity in the Procurement Bill and public procurement to do more than the Government have done in encouraging behaviour.

A number of amendments from Opposition Front Benchers specifically focus on that. I am pleased to see the tax transparency amendment, new clause 10. It makes sense to ask companies to be open and upfront about how much tax they are paying. It is very difficult to find out some of this information and it makes a huge amount of sense that decisions around public procurement could and should be made on the basis of considering whether companies are actually paying the tax they are or should be liable for here.

Amendment 2 from the Opposition on transparency declarations is also incredibly sensible. A number of Members around the House have mentioned the VIP lanes and the fact that there were fast-track contracts in relation to covid. The amendment strikes the right balance. The Government say we need to have fast-track processes and to be able to award contracts quickly. Amendment 2 would still allow that to happen. It would allow the speed that is necessary in emergencies and crises such as covid. It would allow procurement to happen speedily, but would increase the transparency; whether it is an MP, a peer, a senior civil servant or a Minister, a transparency declaration would be required. We wholeheartedly support that amendment.

I turn to amendment 18 on breaching staff rights. The amendment is once again about trying to encourage the behaviour we want to see. We want to see public money, public spending and public contracts going to companies who treat their workers fairly and do not breach workers’ rights. The amendment sets a high bar on exclusion from public procurement as it is specifically about excluding those companies found guilty by an employment tribunal or a court; it not just on the basis of one whistleblower whose case may not yet have been proven. Once again, we wholeheartedly support that.

G7 Summit

Marie Rimmer Excerpts

Monday 22nd May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

Did the Prime Minister have any success in convincing countries, such as India and Brazil, to take a stronger stance against Russia’s invasion and partial occupation of Ukraine?

[The Prime Minister]

One benefit of President Zelensky attending the G7 summit was the ability for him to talk directly to those leaders, and he did so, particularly in that session but also in other conversations. It was a very powerful message that he could deliver in person. I hope that message will go around the world and people saw the symbolism that it represented. As we have seen, at the United Nations over 140 countries have condemned Russia, which remains largely isolated on the global stage, and we continue to bring others to the cause.

Papers Relating to the Home Secretary

Marie Rimmer Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

I want to begin by congratulating the Home Secretary on doing the right thing by resigning just three weeks ago. The holder of that great office of state is responsible for Great Britain’s national security and oversight of all security services. After the first breach that Parliament and the public became aware of, the Home Secretary considered the impact on our country of that major breach and resigned. How did the Prime Minister satisfy himself that it was unlikely to happen again? He reappointed her and now there are six allegations of full breaches of security that we know of. How much more do we not know? Do the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and Cabinet members expect Ukraine, the United States and the European Union to trust Great Britain with their security?

On his appointment, the Prime Minister promised that

“This Government will have integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level.”

What is worrying is that, just six days later, he reappointed the Home Secretary with full knowledge of the first security breach. It now turns out that the Home Secretary is alleged to have committed at least six full breaches, yet how come he trusts the Home Secretary with our national security? Does he really expect and believe that Parliament and the public will forget a breach of national security and trust this Government?

The reality is that the Home Office does not have the time to be part of a psychodrama. We all saw over summer how much chaos the passport backlog caused. We have seen the events at Manston caused by the lack of processing of applications. Thousands of asylum seekers are living in inhumane conditions, with children imprisoned for months, and now there are radicals throwing firebombs at them. We all know how intricate security and confidence must be maintained so the security services can keep this country and its people safe.

The Prime Minister needs to start putting the country before party. The deal with the Home Secretary to help him become Prime Minister is not worth compromising our national security. Is it true that the Prime Minister is now coercing other Ministers to do the media rounds and defend the indefensible? This is not a one-off. The Prime Minister also decided to reappoint the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Gavin Williamson), a former Defence Secretary, to the Cabinet—a Defence Secretary who was sacked by a previous Prime Minister for leaking information from a top-level National Security Council meeting. As a Minister of State in the Cabinet Office, he will now be responsible for our national cyber-security. I wonder what the Prime Minister found so appealing about a man who has helped to run two successful Conservative leadership elections.

For all the talk of trust and getting back on track, the Prime Minister has put himself and his party above our country. This House and the country need to know what information the Prime Minister had before reappointing the Home Secretary. Did he know of all the security breaches? Could he come clean? Was there any consideration or risk assessment prior to the reappointment of the Home Secretary, who looks after our national security and has oversight of all security services? Was there any risk of breach of confidential material? Yes. Was the risk identified? Yes. The Home Secretary herself identified it and resigned. She recognised that she was not up to the job and that there was a risk of it happening again.

How did the Prime Minister satisfy himself that it was unlikely to happen again? He reappointed the Home Secretary, and now there are six allegations of full breaches. How much more do we not know? Do the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and Cabinet Ministers expect Ukraine, the United States and the European Union to trust Great Britain with their security? They should be able to expect that.

Our country is entitled to have a Government with a Prime Minister, a Home Secretary and Cabinet Ministers who put the country first. Integrity, professionalism and accountability need to be far more than words and more than a newspaper headline. It is time to clean up our country and this Government.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Tom Hunt.

Ministers’ Severance Pay

Marie Rimmer Excerpts

Monday 11th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Wheeler]

The hon. Gentleman is slightly off point regarding the Education Minister; I would like him to remember that the lady in question has had seven death threats against her, and the way the baying mob were reacting at the time was astonishing. As regards anything else, people will use the three-week window to decide whether they take the severance payment or not, and the law is the law.

[Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

It is a sensitive time. People are going hungry, they are going to be cold, although they are not at the moment, and they have to deal with energy prices. Yes, we hear, “This is statute and that is it. It is up to the individual.” We were told this once before, and the individual can do something, but surely at this time, with all that is going on, when we are in a poor state as regards respect from our public, we should call on the relevant people to reflect the sensitive situation and to say en masse, “We do not want this. We will not accept it.” That would go a long way with the public.

[Mrs Wheeler]

I thank the hon. Lady, whom I know to be an unbelievably caring lady. It is important that comments and sentiments like that are expressed in this Chamber, as they make the House of Commons the sort of place that everybody in a living democracy wants to have. I will reflect on her views. I repeat, loudly, that there is a three-week window and individuals can reflect on the situation themselves, but I do thank her for the question.

Bill Presented

Parliamentary Elections (Optional Preferential Vote) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Paul Maynard, supported by John Stevenson, presented a Bill to introduce the optional preferential voting system for Parliamentary elections; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the first time; to be read a second time on Friday 9 September, and to be printed (Bill 138).

Energy (Oil and Gas) Profits Levy Bill: Business of the House

Ordered,

That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Energy (Oil and Gas) Profits Levy Bill:

Timetable

(1) (a) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken at today’s sitting in accordance with this Order.

(b) Proceedings on Second Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.

(c) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.

(d) This paragraph shall have effect notwithstanding the practice of the House as to the intervals between stages of a Bill brought in upon Ways and Means Resolutions.

Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put

(2) When the Bill has been read a second time, it shall, despite Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills not subject to a programme order), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put.

(3) (a) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee of the whole House, the Chair shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

(b) If the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.

(4) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (1), the Chair or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions in the same order as they would fall to be put if this Order did not apply:

(a) any Question already proposed from the chair;

(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;

(c) the Question on any amendment, new Clause or new Schedule selected by the Chair or Speaker for separate decision;

(d) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;

(e) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded; and shall not put any other questions, other than the question on any motion described in paragraph (9)(a) of this Order.

(5) On a Motion made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chair or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(6) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (4)(d) on successive amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Chair or Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.

(7) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (4)(e) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chair shall instead put a single Question in relation to those provisions, except that the Question shall be put separately on any Clause of or Schedule to the Bill which a Minister of the Crown has signified an intention to leave out.

Miscellaneous

(8) Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies.

(9) (a) No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken, to recommit the Bill or to vary or supplement the provisions of this Order.

(b) No notice shall be required of such a Motion.

(c) Such a Motion may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.

(d) The Question on such a Motion shall be put forthwith; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (c) shall thereupon be resumed.

(e) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on such a Motion.

(10) (a) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown.

(b) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(11) (a) The start of any debate under Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates) to be held at today’s sitting shall be postponed until the conclusion of any proceedings to which this Order applies.

(b) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply in respect of any such debate.

(12) Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(13) (a) Any private business which has been set down for consideration at a time falling after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders or by any Order of the House, be considered at the conclusion of any proceedings to which this Order applies.

(b) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business so far as necessary for the purpose of securing that the business may be considered for a period of three hours.—(Mr Simon Clarke.)

Standards in Public Life

Marie Rimmer Excerpts

Tuesday 7th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the deputy Leader of the Opposition for getting the debate and for her powerful and informative contribution in leading the debate. Standards in public life matter—they mattered in the past, they will matter in the future, and they matter now. The Nolan principles were established in 1995 to set the expected standards, with seven principles to help a public office holder provide good governance to the people they serve. The Government and their leader have forsaken those principles.

I respect the 148 Members on the Conservative Benches who put the country first yesterday, yet I do wonder why the Cabinet continues to support a Prime Minister who has fallen foul of the ministerial code. Which of the seven principles are they displaying in continuing to support the first law-breaking Prime Minister in office? Selflessness? Integrity? Objectivity? Openness? Honesty? Leadership? I am not sure whether it is any of them. I ask them to consider what they have done.

All Members are elected to serve the people, not a law-breaking Prime Minister. Our system of government gives a sitting Prime Minister immense power. The Prime Minister is the person responsible for setting out and enforcing the ministerial code. It was not anticipated that a Prime Minister would be the one under scrutiny. It was not anticipated that a Prime Minister would attempt to water down the code to cover his own potential breaking of it. That is why the motion matters.

The standards expected of those in public office need to be strengthened, not weakened. If there is one lesson to learn from the partygate saga, that should be it. The duty of putting the country first falls on all Members of this House. We are the ultimate arbiters of strengthening standards in public life. No Prime Minister is worth forsaking one’s own principles, and they should not be sacrificed for this Prime Minister.

The argument that now is not the right time to strengthen the standards expected and to remove the Prime Minister due to the war in Ukraine, the cost of living crisis and the Northern Ireland protocol does not wash. They are the very reason why that must be done. With issues of such grave importance, public trust and confidence matter more than ever.

I want our country to continue to support Ukraine until it is victorious, I want the Government to do more to help people through the cost of living crisis and I want a sensible solution to the Northern Ireland protocol. A majority of the House wants all of that. The only risk to those causes is having a Prime Minister and Government who do not enjoy the public’s support. That is why the standards expected of those in public office must be strengthened. It is time to clean up politics.

Easter Recess: Government Update

Marie Rimmer Excerpts

Tuesday 19th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister genuinely does not seem to understand how he got his fine or what he did to break the law. He wrote, “What an utter nonsense.” If a man is so incompetent that he cannot understand his own rules, is he also a man who cannot understand the public’s challenges given the pace and scale of the soaring cost of living?

[The Prime Minister]

That is exactly why the Government are focused on those issues. That is what we need to get on with. It is about dealing with the aftershocks of covid, and the impact of the Ukrainian crisis on fuel prices and on inflation. That is where we are focused 100%.