List of Ministers’ Interests and Ministerial Code

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Monday 24th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

The problem the Minister has is that there is a pattern with the Prime Minister: he has already been fined for not wearing a seatbelt and for breaching covid rules, and he is currently being investigated over allegations about his registering of interests. Now, in an unprecedented move, it has been reported that the investigation has been widened because of allegations that it was discussed in public. Can the Minister explain why this Prime Minister, sadly much like his predecessor but one, seems to be—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I made it very, very clear in the past five minutes that questions were to be general and not refer to the investigation. I said it loudly and clearly. If the hon. Lady wants to ask a very brief general question, she may do so.

[Patricia Gibson]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I apologise. I tried to make my comments general by simply talking about allegations. I was talking about allegations, not about any investigation.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Let us make this absolutely clear. An allegation made in public in this House is a very serious matter and it has consequences. I will give the hon. Lady one more chance to ask a brief general question.

[Patricia Gibson]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was simply going to ask the Minister if he can explain why he thinks the Prime Minister seems so accident prone when it comes to running his Government?

[Alex Burghart]

The Prime Minister is doing an excellent job of delivering on the people’s priorities. Scottish National party Members want to be very careful before picking up rocks in their glasshouse.

Oral Answers to Questions

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Thursday 16th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Johnny Mercer]

Op Fortitude was something we piloted at Christmas, and it will go live in the next six weeks. It is a single, defined pathway out of homelessness that local authorities will be able to refer into. It is backed up by £8.5 million, and it buys 910 supported housing placements. That is across the United Kingdom. We do not want to see any homeless veterans by the end of this year, and we will strain every sinew to make sure we achieve that goal.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

Some 90% of veterans who try to claim personal independence payment for post-traumatic stress disorder have their applications rejected, according to armed forces charities. This is leaving veterans facing homelessness, being reliant on food banks and, in some cases, even considering suicide. Can the Minister explain why it is that veterans are being forced to rely on charities rather than being given the help that they need by this Government?

[Johnny Mercer]

That question might have been relevant six or seven years ago, but this Government have completely transformed how we deal with veterans, particularly vulnerable veterans, in this country, and recognise that there is a transition between charity and Government responsibility. If there are any individual cases, I am more than happy for the hon. Lady to refer them to me. There has never been better support for armed forces veterans in this country than that given today, and I am determined that all veterans will feel the benefit.

Oral Answers to Questions

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Wednesday 25th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mims Davies]

I refer the hon. Lady to my previous answer. We do know that work is the best route out of poverty and the best way to tackle those deep-rooted disadvantages. I recently joined a No.10 roundtable on a mentoring and support pipeline to help understand what is holding people back. No one should be left behind because of their postcode or their background. Mentoring circles at the DWP can make a real difference, particularly to young people who are looking to progress from that deep disadvantage.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

7. What recent assessment she has made of the implications for her policies of the gender pension gap.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)]

The primary causes of the gender pension gap are due to the historical inequality of the labour market. This includes differences in working patterns and earnings for men and women. The Government have taken key steps, such as the introduction of shared parental leave, mandatory gender pay gap reporting, and an effort, as we have heard already today, to tackle the root causes of this problem for women. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) is looking directly at this issue for women as well.

[Patricia Gibson]

It is bad enough that women born in the 1950s were robbed of their pensions, but, more generally, the gender pension gap is significantly larger than the gender pay gap and applies to a significantly large proportion of women in the UK, with retired women more likely to be poorer and more likely to rely on pension credit. That is a problem that persists. Will the Minister urgently address the issue, particularly the injustice suffered by WASPI women, or will her Government just ignore women being poorer in retirement?

[Mims Davies]

I assure the hon. Lady that we will not be doing that. We monitor pension contributions and participation by gender, and publish data regularly through our workplace pension participation and savings trends publication. Key to this matter is our funding of returner programmes, which supports those who have taken time out of the labour market for caring responsibilities. Finally, pension sharing on divorce is an option that can help women if a marriage or civil partnership has broken down. As I have said, this is a focus for us all.

Infected Blood Inquiry

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Thursday 15th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Quin]

I should have said this in response to the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) but, in response to the Father of the House, I have greatly appreciated spending time with him and the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), who has been a tireless campaigner on this, as has the entire all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood. I very much appreciated the time they spent with me.

I absolutely recognise the point on preregistration, which is one of the issues at the forefront of our minds as we go through this. The Father of the House recognises that there are particular issues, including in relation to medical records that may have been lost over time, dating back decades. There needs to be a clear system so that people know how to take advantage of the scheme.

On compensation and scams, I share my hon. Friend’s concern. I am not certain how we will be able to address that. It is obviously an issue that afflicts many of our constituents in many circumstances, but I am sure that it will not be impossible to deliver timely advice alongside the scheme.

In terms of tax, the recommendation is clear that this should be tax free and should be disregarded for benefits. In relation to inheritance tax in particular, there are complexities that need to be examined. Whether we need to have legislation as part of that process is one of the issues that we are working on. If my hon. Friend or other hon. Members have detailed questions, they are more than welcome to write to me and I shall respond.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

We in the SNP pay tribute to those affected by the infected blood scandal—one in three infected with HIV were children—and their continued decades-long struggle for justice. Today’s announcement of a swift response to Sir Robert Francis’s final recommendations relating to compensation is indeed welcome, but the Minister will understand the widespread disappointment about his inability to commit today to a date for publishing a response to Sir Robert’s compensation framework report.

The Minister will be aware that there is understandably a significant and remaining lack of trust between those impacted by infected blood, the UK Government and existing support schemes. Recommendation 16 of Sir Robert’s study calls for an arm’s length body to

“administer…compensation…with…independence of judgement and accountable directly to Parliament”.

I hope the Minister will tell us today that he will keep the House updated on the progress of that.

Thousands of families across the UK have experienced great trauma after they have cared for loved ones suffering—or in many cases dying—due to contaminated blood. Does the Minister support the notion of the interim scheme being extended to families and carers who have cared for people with infected blood?

[Jeremy Quin]

There are two points in particular. On the arm’s length body, a persuasive case is made in recommendation 16. Looking at the principles of that, particularly on independence, we are not yet ready to commit to an ALB, but we definitely want to have a body that will have the trust and respect of those whom we are seeking to support. Work is going on as to how that will best be constituted, but recognition of independence is key behind the principles of the recommendation of an ALB. I look forward to updating the hon. Lady on other issues as the work progresses.

Oral Answers to Questions

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Thursday 8th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Quin]

That is an interesting idea. I am more than happy to agree to meet the hon. Gentleman and to hear what he has to say, and we will take it from there.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

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

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Oliver Dowden)]

Last week, in response to the King’s message, this House passed the Counsellors of State Bill. I thank all Members of the House who ensured that that legislation was passed in a timely and efficient manner. The Cobra unit and the wider Cabinet Office continues to co-ordinate Government activity to ensure resilience, particularly with respect to industrial action and winter pressures. This Government will stand up for hard-working people and do all they can to minimise disruption to their lives and their livelihoods.

This month marks the first anniversary of the National Cyber Security Strategy. The cyber threat is real; Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine has led to a significant increase in the tempo of Russian cyber-attacks. Just last year, there were 2.7 million cyber-related frauds. Our dedicated experts in the National Cyber Security Centre stopped more than 2 million attacks last year, and I wish to place on record my thanks to them and to officials across the Cabinet Office who will continue to work over Christmas to help keep this country safe.

[Patricia Gibson]

I have tried before, as have others, but we have not really had an answer, so I will give it another go. The UK has written off £10 billion of spending on personal protective equipment that was either unusable, above market value or not even delivered. Alongside that, and perhaps not unrelated to it, we have seen VIP contract lanes for Tory pals and cronies. Who does the Secretary of State think should be held accountable for this colossal waste of money? From where I am standing, there is no reason why anyone can ever trust this Government to deliver value for money for the taxpayer.

[Oliver Dowden]

I have to say to the hon. Lady that this is an extraordinary exercise in hindsight from the SNP. It should remember the pressure that the state and the country were under at the time of the crisis, and the Government responded effectively to it. That is not just my view, but the view of the Office for Budget Responsibility, which said:

“Those potential costs—

of not acting with such speed—

“ cannot be quantified with any precision, but…it is not unreasonable to think that they could have been far greater.” Of course the Government are taking action to deal with that. For example, we have stopped more than £700 million of overclaimed grants, but she must understand the context.

Oral Answers to Questions

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Wednesday 16th November 2022 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

1. What assessment his Department has made of the impact of the reduction in the Scottish block grant on devolved finances.

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)]

3. What assessment his Department has made of the impact of the reduction in the Scottish block grant on devolved finances.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alister Jack)]

Scottish National party Members may want independence, but they certainly do not have independence of thought. The UK Government are providing the Scottish Government with a record block grant settlement of £41 billion a year over the next three years. That is the highest spending review settlement since the advent of devolution, and I hope that the SNP will join me in welcoming that, although I will not hold my breath.

[Patricia Gibson]

So much for “Jackanory”. According to the House of Commons Library, the Scottish block grant was cut by 4.1% this financial year and is set to be cut by a further 6% in the next financial year. That is a two-year real-terms cut of nearly £5 billion. The UK Government repeatedly claim to be increasing the funding for Scotland, but that is clearly not true, so why do the Minister, the Secretary of State and his Government refuse to admit that they have cut the block grant and plan to cut it even further, and when will the Secretary of State for Scotland stand up for Scotland?

[Mr Jack]

This Secretary of State is standing up for Scotland. The £41 billion settlement over three years was a record figure; it is the highest figure since devolution began and the first grant was agreed in 1999. I am standing up for Scotland, but I recognise that the Scottish Government have tough choices to make. Inflation is affecting the whole world and they will have to make responsible choices. I do not believe that it is responsible for them to cut their public services by £1.25 billion.

Oral Answers to Questions

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Thursday 27th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Brendan Clarke-Smith]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question, and I am glad that the situation has been resolved. As I said in relation to the Islands Forum, the Government are committed to ensuring that island communities are fully represented. I am sure that we will be more than happy to continue with the meetings, and I am certainly happy to meet any stakeholders to discuss how we can improve the situation and continue to work together.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

2. What discussions he has had with representatives from the devolved Administrations on recent changes in Government responsibility for the Union and inter- governmental relations.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Brendan Clarke-Smith)]

The Union is at the heart of the Government’s work, from securing UK-wide growth to establishing freeports and supporting the Homes for Ukraine scheme. Central to that is working closely with colleagues in the devolved Governments. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities will be continuing that work in his new role.

[Patricia Gibson]

The previous Prime Minister, in her short tenure, managed to keep only one pledge: to ignore the Leaders of the devolved nations. The new Prime Minister has said that he wants to lead the most active UK-wide Government for decades, and also to respect devolved Governments. Will the Minister explain how this Government can claim to be respectful when the Prime Minister has pledged to circumvent Holyrood and undermine the devolution settlement even more than his predecessors?

[Brendan Clarke-Smith]

I remind the hon. Lady that the previous Prime Minister did meet with First Ministers at events commemorating the Queen. We have also heard that the new Prime Minister has already spoken to the devolved leaders of Wales and Scotland and has made a firm commitment to work with our devolved Governments and to strengthen our precious Union. I am sure that he will continue to do that and, in doing so, will certainly have the support of Conservative Members.

Departure of Previous Home Secretary

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Thursday 20th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Brendan Clarke-Smith]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important for documents to be kept secure. That is why such material is kept separate from personal emails and so on. This is something that Ministers—including me, as a new Minister—are always reminded of: we are given a big thick rulebook that we have to read.

We have made it clear that when there are breaches, there is a method for reporting them. We will of course take advice from the Cabinet Secretary regarding that, and I am sure that if there are further breaches, Members will be made aware of them in future.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

The dogs in the street can see the chaos at the heart of this Government, and the departure of the former Home Secretary—the full truth of which we still do not know, even after what has been said today—is not even the latest example of that chaos. As we face huge economic challenges and a “cost of Tory” crisis, we have probably not needed stronger and more decisive leadership this much since world war two. Does the Minister think that the UK has the strong and decisive leadership that it needs?

[Brendan Clarke-Smith]

I absolutely do have that strong and decisive leadership, and it was strong and decisive leadership that received the resignation of the former Home Secretary and then appointed another Home Secretary on the same afternoon.

As the Prime Minister has made very clear, she wants to move forward. She wants to move quickly to deliver for the people of this country. That is why appointments have been made, and given the breadth of the talent on the Back Benches that we currently have, there is a wide pool of talent from which to choose. I am glad that we are in that position, rather than having to send our Front Benchers on training courses as the Opposition have had to do recently.

UK Energy Costs

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Thursday 8th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I apologise, Mr Speaker, for being generous in taking interventions.

The Government are also key to driving greater private sector investment in low-carbon solutions, for instance by de-risking investment in early-stage technologies—we have already heard about some early-stage technologies—and emerging sectors such as hydrogen production. Greater investor certainty cuts the cost of new technology, drives innovation, creates jobs and boosts economic growth. The Government’s unequivocal support for this agenda would be a positive signal not just for our green tech industry, but for the ambition of the UK economy more broadly.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

rose—

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to follow the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). If I may briefly reflect back on the way she behaved when she was Prime Minister, I have to say that she showed courtesy to Opposition leaders, whether it was the then leader of the Labour party or ourselves as the third party. If I may gently say so to the Prime Minister, some of the protocols to make sure that we have advance sight of statements, and indeed are aware of when the Prime Minister will be coming to the Chamber to speak, are important—I do not know whether she was listening to any of that, but it would be helpful if it could be passed on.

At the start of the year we were faced with an energy crisis. By the summer it was an emergency. Right now, today, we are at the precipice of a humanitarian disaster, because it is no longer a question of whether to heat or eat when many households can no longer afford to do either.

[Patricia Gibson]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Ian Blackford]

Let me make some progress and then I will.

This cost crisis puts livelihoods and lives at risk. All the while, as this disaster deepened, all summer the Tories spent all their time desperately fighting among themselves, and the public were left desperately waiting for a real cost of living plan. We finally—finally—have a plan today, but I fear that when the public absorb the details, it will fall far short of the help we need.

We have heard today that the green levies are being scrapped. That is of deep concern to those of us on these Benches, particularly given that the green levies fund the warm home discount scheme and, of course, energy-efficiency measures for low-income households. I ask the Government to make sure that that support will remain in place for those who need it. But the sheer scale of the soaring energy bills meant that there was never any question but that households and businesses would not be able to pay the cost of energy bills. They were, and they are, unaffordable. If these prices were not frozen, the bills simply could not have been paid, so freezing prices was not really a choice. It is the only political option.

When the current price cap stands at £2,000, with a 54% increase since spring, and when many people are already unable to pay, setting the cap at £2,500 is not an actual freeze. We know, too, that businesses, especially SMEs, are facing even sharper cost increases than households, and an avalanche of insolvencies and redundancies is forecast. Many businesses simply could not have afforded to stay open.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Blackford]

I will make progress, because I am conscious of time and those who want to speak.

I will briefly deal with another prominent point in the Prime Minister’s speech. She blames the cost of living crisis on the war in Ukraine and I believe that that is worth expanding on. Of course, there is no doubt that what has happened in Ukraine has played a major role in spiralling wholesale prices, and we have rightly come together across the Chamber in condemnation of Putin’s horrific war and his actions to thwart European energy supplies. I look forward to continuing to work with the new Government in a spirit of consensus on this issue. We all stand together against Putin’s horrible actions and the war in Ukraine.

As we have rightly helped Ukraine, however, we must also help citizens at home. Indeed, we owe it to them to do so; I hope that the Prime Minister will reach consensus with me on that point. Where we divide is my belief that we must recognise that other countries in Europe, which are far more reliant on Russian gas than the UK, have weathered the economic storm far better than the United Kingdom. We must therefore recognise the UK Government’s role in creating the circumstances for the crisis. Shameful mismanagement by successive Tory Governments, topped by a Tory Brexit, means that the UK has the highest inflation in the G7 and the lowest growth in the G20, and that we are marching headlong into a recession. UK household electricity prices have surged ahead of those of our European peers, and the UK is now in a deeper state of crisis than most, because of the damaging choices that have been made.

[Patricia Gibson]

For my constituents in North Ayrshire and Arran, who live in difficulty, the most important aspect of today’s announcement is that they were waiting to hear of help with their fuel bills, but they were instead told that their fuel bills will rise. They will be bitterly disappointed by that. Nothing has been offered to them today. Does my right hon. Friend agree with their disappointment?

[Ian Blackford]

Yes, I do. We need to reflect that energy bills are rising in an energy-rich Scotland. The damage done by the UK Government’s choices—choices that have been imposed on us—make the choice about Scotland’s future ever clearer. Scotland is energy rich, so we simply should not be facing an energy emergency. It may surprise some in this House, but Scotland produces six times more gas than we consume and almost 100% of our entire electricity production comes from renewables. That is not attention-seeking, I would say to the Prime Minister; these are the facts. Scotland has the energy, but we just simply do not have the powers. We are stuck in a UK market that prices our electricity on the basis of the price of wholesale gas, and the power to change the system lies with Westminster.

Seven Principles of Public Life

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Wednesday 7th September 2022 Westminster Hall

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

In a debate about the seven principles of public life, it is fair to preface my remarks by saying that the recent history of the Government has been at best tempestuous. That is the context within which this debate takes place. I will try to summarise what has brought us here today.

We know about the crony covid contracts and the illegal Prorogation of Parliament, but what probably touched the public far more deeply were the lockdown parties that the former Prime Minister knew nothing about. He then admitted he knew about them but did not attend. Then he admitted he attended but did not realise they were parties. This was a saga that pushed the credulity of the public beyond comprehension, and was beneath the dignity of the office of the Prime Minister.

Some Tory Members think we should all move on—it is in the past; let us forget about it. But there is no denying that people across the House of Commons and people across the UK, regardless of their political persuasion, felt by turns very angry, let down, betrayed and even mocked by the behaviour of a Prime Minister who told us we could not be with our loved ones. We were told to help prevent the spread of covid and to support the NHS. People, by and large, followed that advice—even when their loved ones were dying alone and even when loved ones were suffering with terrible loneliness. They followed that advice even when it was very difficult and distressing to do so, because they believed it was the right thing to do. To find that their Prime Minister so casually and so blatantly did not follow that advice—his advice—was very hard for many to bear.

I understand that we face a crisis in energy prices, a cost of living crisis, and deeply worrying levels of inflation, but truth and honesty when Prime Ministers take to the Dispatch Box in the House of Commons really matters. If leaders look people in the eye and say things to them that are not true, or if people feel that they simply cannot trust what the Prime Minister tells them, how much harder is it to govern and effectively lead through times of dark crisis? Now more than ever, people across the UK need leaders they can believe in. The legacy of partygate is that the office of the Prime Minister has been badly tarnished, and that is ultimately a threat to democracy itself. It seems to me that perhaps that is why we are even holding this debate.

There can be no doubt that the previous Prime Minister’s tenure showed just how important the Nolan principles of selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness and honesty truly are. Those principles underpin the survival of democracy itself. Standards in public life, the ministerial code and trust all matter.

This is not just about the impact of partygate. We have also witnessed attempts to rewrite the ministerial code, and declarations saying it would be “disproportionate” to require Ministers who breach the code to step down, and that it would be more in keeping to ask them to take a pay cut or make a public apology. Yet Lord Evans was clear in his report recommending reforms following a review of the ministerial code by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which said:

“It is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament.”

That is self-evidently true and should not be considered remotely controversial in any state that believes itself to be a democracy. And yet, chillingly, breaking international law was removed from the code in 2015. The section that read,

“the overarching duty on Ministers to comply with the law including international law and treaty obligations and to uphold the administration of justice and to protect the integrity of public life”

was changed in 2015 to,

“the overarching duty on Ministers to comply with the law and to protect the integrity of public life.”

There can be only one reason why the commitment to comply with “international law” and “treaty obligations” was removed. Presumably the intention is, and was, to pick and choose what international law would be complied with. And what do we find? The then Northern Ireland Secretary, the right hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), admitted to the House of Commons in a debate on the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill that it broke

“international law in a very specific and limited way.”—[Official Report, 8 September 2020; Vol. 679, c. 509.]

That allows Ministers to make regulations inconsistent with the UK’s obligations under the withdrawal agreement, laying the groundwork for more extensive breaches of international law and, importantly, seeking to insulate Ministers from judicial scrutiny at home.

Most extraordinarily, the provisions on international law and those on domestic law in the same Bill could have legal effect notwithstanding their incompatibility with

“any rule of international or domestic law whatsoever”.

This appears to be an attempt to oust the jurisdiction of the courts to review the legality of ministerial decisions under these powers at all.

We have a new Prime Minister and she must get a grip on the moral decay at the heart of Government. Lord Geidt left because he was put in the impossible position of having to arbitrate over flagrant law breaking. Of the four ethics advisers there have ever been, two have resigned under the tenure of the former Prime Minister—the same Prime Minister whose final honours list appears to be full of presents for cronies and pals, putting them into positions of lifetime peerages, unaccountable to the public while they scrutinise legislation.

How can we recover from this damaged trust and decay? It will not be easy but I believe it can be done. The new Prime Minister could do what her predecessor failed to do. Her predecessor refused to give the then Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests, Lord Geidt, the power to launch his own investigations, as requested by a number of ethics bodies, but the new Prime Minister could provide such power to independent standards advisers. At the moment, as we have heard, an independent investigation into whether the ministerial code has been breached can take place only if the Prime Minister approves it, and even then, the findings can be completely disregarded. That cannot be right.

But the fear that many of us have, as we have heard today, is that matters will not improve. The new Prime Minister has said that she may not appoint an ethics adviser, but that would be a terrible mistake. I understand that her reasoning is that it is not necessary as she has “always acted with integrity”, but even if we believe that and accept that argument, in politics perception matters. Sometimes in politics, perception is the only thing that matters. The perception will inevitably be that her stubborn refusal to appoint an ethics adviser, given recent history, means that it will be business as usual and it will do nothing to restore confidence in the idea that the principles of public life really matter to this Government. It will be a squandered opportunity for the new Prime Minister, who was at the heart of her predecessor’s Government, if she fails to take a new broom and sweep away some of the dubious ethics of the previous leadership. Otherwise, as we all know, trust in politics and the business of government will continue to erode. That damages the very fabric of our society and the cohesiveness of our communities, and ultimately threatens democracy itself. That helps no one, benefits no one but harms everyone.