Privilege: Conduct of Right Hon. Boris Johnson
Philippa Whitford Excerpts(10 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
We have always had a great deal of concern about the conduct of this Tory Government, who misled us through the pandemic from beginning to end, and at times it terrified us. We saw the photos of Boris Johnson surrounded by empty champagne bottles; we heard how the former Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), got his pandemic strategy from the “Contagion” movie; and we saw how the former Chancellor and current Prime Minister was on the receiving end of a fixed penalty fine over partygate. In fact, 100 of these fines were issued to officials and politicians at the heart of government, and investigations are not over yet. This was a culture of not just bending the rules, but shattering them. Yet, right until this moment, Members such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) were being thrown out of this place for pointing out that Boris Johnson lied and lied and lied about these incidents, all while the liar himself was protected by procedure.
The fifth report of the Privileges Committee is forensic in its approach and has revealed a culture of entitlement that has eroded the very foundations of that which passes for democracy at Westminster. It says:
“The overall thrust of Mr Johnson’s evidence to the Committee has been to downplay the significance and narrow the scope of the assertions he made to the House.”
It uses words such as “disingenuous” and “misleading”. It talks of Mr Johnson using language that was
“contrary to common English usage”
and of his
“advancing an unsustainable interpretation of Guidance”.
The report’s tone is flat, completely professional and absolutely damning.
The report has also shed more light on behaviour that proves without doubt that it really was one rule for them, another rule for us. Since its publication, we have seen some clips that reveal the unbelievable arrogance of those posing for photos and being filmed dancing at Tory HQ, apparently on a day when it was announced that London was entering tier 3 restrictions—and some of those taking part have then been rewarded with honours. People died alone while No. 10 officials had Friday wine time. The reason these people spent their final moments alone was that they were following the orders of a Government who disregarded their own policies so blatantly, with suitcases filled with booze and with office karaoke machines being ignored as they were wheeled in. And then Boris Johnson lied about it.
Paragraph 210 of the report is scathing. It states:
“There is no precedent for a Prime Minister having been found to have deliberately misled the House. He misled the House on an issue of the greatest importance to the House and to the public, and did so repeatedly.”
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the outpouring we have seen on social media of people sharing the pain of instances of a daughter lost to suicide, or of funerals of those close to them that they could not attend, shows that these scars are not going to disappear in people’s lifetimes? So is the demand to move on and the trivialisation of this matter not just the final insult?
Deidre Brock
I completely agree. The stories I have seen on social media and heard from constituents are utterly heartbreaking. The report vindicates every single person who made immense personal sacrifices during the pandemic. I am extremely grateful to the Committee and its officers for their work, particularly in such a hostile environment of relentless intimidation and insults.
One would like to think the Committee’s recommendations will ensure that such a monumental betrayal of public trust will never be undertaken so lightly again. However, Boris Johnson and his allies’ continued refusal to accept the findings and recommendations of the report is a further affront to the democratic process. In fact, the former Prime Minister’s relationship with the truth is so distorted, I am not sure whether he comprehends the depths of his own deception. Either that, or he still thinks he can play us all for fools. In that, at least, I would say the game is up.
We cannot risk reinforcing the message that those in positions of power can deny, dismiss and evade the consequences of their own actions. Instead, the House must now work to regain at least some of the trust it has already lost and safeguard the democratic process. To do otherwise would set an extremely dangerous precedent.
The report comes alongside the news that the Scottish Government have published plans for an independent Scotland to have a codified constitution, written by the people, for the people, and, crucially, holding our representatives accountable to the people. Not only would that constitution guarantee our human rights and an NHS free at the point of need, it would ensure that no Scottish Parliament would ever take so much time, during a cost of living crisis, figuring out how to discipline out-of-control politicians who like to push flimsy Westminster conventions to the absolute limit. I note that over the weekend Mr Johnson may have tested that again, by again breaching the ministerial code with the announcement of his latest side job.
This mess is also about a party that ignored the obvious failings of a man because it thought he could win it power. I have read that many Members on the Government Benches plan to abstain, terrified of those among their constituents who are, unfortunately, still taken in by the clown prince, the former Prime Minister, playing the buffoon for them. He has, of course, jumped ship and escaped the censure of the House, but we need to turn our gaze on all the Members on the Government Benches who ignored his track record and indulged his behaviour and the obvious failings of the man, simply because they thought he could win them their seats.
Business of the House
Philippa Whitford Excerpts(10 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
When I was a teenager, my best friend had spina bifida, one of the congenital neural tube defects that cause serious lifelong disability, as well as resulting in babies lost to miscarriage, stillbirth and termination. The majority of those can be prevented by folic acid, but as the neural tube forms in the first four weeks when most women do not even know they are pregnant, food supplementation is vital. Some 80% of neural tube defects could be prevented with effective amounts of folic acid added to a broad range of foods, so why are the Government planning such a low dose and such a limited scheme that it will prevent only 20% of these tragic cases?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that important point. She will know that I am neither the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, nor the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and it is to those Departments that she needs to direct that question. Health questions are on 11 July and Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions are on 6 July, but I will certainly make sure that the Departments have heard her remarks today. I think that is how I can best serve her as Leader of the House.
Business of the House
Philippa Whitford Excerpts(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
A constituent of mine discovered in November that His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs had handed over £972 to the company Mortgagesmiths, which took almost half of it in commission fees. As he had not commissioned the company in the first place, he demanded to see the application form. It was such a poor forgery that both his and his wife’s signatures were clearly in the same handwriting. With the Government repeatedly warning the public not to fall for financial scams, it is incredible that HMRC fell for that one. Can we have a Treasury statement so that we can understand the extent of the problem, what is being done to prevent it in future and when constituents such as mine will get their money from HMRC?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that case; I am very sorry to hear it. She may wish to raise it at Treasury questions on 9 May but, given that that is a sizeable chunk of money for her constituent to be out of pocket, I will certainly raise it today with HMRC and ask it to contact her about it.
Parliamentary Partnership Assembly
Philippa Whitford Excerpts(2 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
I welcome the news that the Parliamentary Partnership Assembly will, hopefully, heave into view in the next few months. The aim is to create a working relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Parliament, to look at the impact of the trade and co-operation agreement, and to be able to make representations and recommendations to the Partnership Council to improve its implementation. That means that the make-up of the assembly will be critical in recognising and, indeed, trying to tackle the differentiated impact of Brexit across the four nations of the UK.
Will the Government not therefore accept the need to consider including representatives of the devolved Parliaments? We have already heard a discussion about how to secure the representation of not just one view but all the views from Northern Ireland. However, Scotland and Wales are also massively impacted by Brexit, and I welcomed the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald), who did at least consider how that inclusion could be achieved.
Sir Oliver Heald
I certainly feel that there should be an inclusive approach, but the agreement refers to the membership of the assembly being from this Parliament and the European Parliament, so I think we would be talking about observer status.
Dr Whitford
Perhaps when the Leader of the House sums up the debate, he will explain to us what consultation has been carried out with the devolved Parliaments— particularly Northern Ireland, obviously, but, as I have said, Scotland and Wales have also been massively impacted by Brexit, and the impacts differ according to local economies, cultures and demographics. It is important that all those voices are gathered and represented.
The chair of the delegation will obviously be a very important figure, and, according to the documents, should be elected at the first meeting. It is vital that this is not a Government anointment of the kind that we have seen in some of the important Select Committees. We are talking about a parliamentary delegation, not an intergovernmental delegation.
A key role of the assembly will be trying to repair the relationship with our European neighbours, which is at rock bottom. The brinkmanship that we have seen over the last year, and repeated threats to the Northern Ireland protocol—a deal that the Prime Minister was quite happy to claim as his own personal breakthrough in the run-up to the 2019 election—have undermined trust. We often hear that with trust, many of the issues surrounding the protocol could be eased, but—with a German husband, and having watched German media and heard the views of Germans about what has happened here—I know that trust is now utterly absent when it comes to whether the UK will keep its word on anything in the future, which makes it likely that moving forward through the challenges of the next few years will be very difficult.
Unfortunately—particularly if meetings are only going to be six-monthly—what the assembly simply cannot replace are the myriad interactions, formal and informal, between officials, between experts, between Ministers and between Heads of State that used to happen when the UK was a member of the EU. They were able not just to influence policy but, often, to defuse tensions. It should not be forgotten that the interactions on neutral ground between John Major and Albert Reynolds made possible a relationship, indeed a warm friendship, that allowed the UK and Ireland to work together and reset the British-Irish relationship in the early 1990s.
As a Scottish MP, I will obviously be speaking up about the impact of Brexit in Scotland, which I see in my own constituency and my colleagues see throughout Scotland in all our sectors: in fishing, in farming, in the NHS, in social care and in tourism. It is important that we speak up for the majority of voters in Scotland, who frankly did not want Brexit and still do not want it. I look forward to a time when Scotland will return to the EU as a modern, independent country in its own right.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I would simply like to make it clear, as has already been indicated, that the partnership assembly will not be a decision-making body, and nor is it foreseen as such by article 11 of the trade and co-operation agreement between the UK and the EU. Decisions regarding the UK’s new trading relationship with the European Union rest with the UK Government, led by Lord Frost in the trade and co-operation agreement partnership council and various specialised committees. The partnership assembly will, however, be a potentially useful forum for Members to meet Members of the European Parliament to discuss the new UK-EU trade agreement and other related issues—rather like COSAC, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the Council of Europe and so forth. As I have said before, the UK may have left the European Union, but good working relations with European counterparts are important for trade and wider co-operation. I believe that the partnership assembly can contribute to stabilising UK-EU relations, and to that extent I welcome the establishment of this arrangement.
With regard to what the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) has just said about the dire consequences of Brexit, I have to say that that is a pretty average mantra these days from the remainers who persist in saying that there was somehow a level playing field before and that the EU is a democratic body of the first order. Quite frankly, I have never known a body to be described as democratic when it makes its decisions in the Council of Ministers behind closed doors by majority voting—[Interruption.] It is not. I have been a member of the European Scrutiny Committee for 37 years and I know what I am talking about, and so does the hon. Lady, because she was on that Committee with me.
Dr Whitford
Does the hon. Member not recognise that the Cabinet makes decisions behind closed doors as well? Many Parliaments and Governments make decisions behind closed doors.
Sir William Cash
There is a simple distinction between I have said and what the hon. Lady has just said, because the Government do not pass legislation but the Council of Ministers does. That is the fundamental difference. At this point, I shall resume my place, unless my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) would like to give me another lesson in constitutional law.
Strengthening Standards in Public Life
Philippa Whitford Excerpts(2 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Pete Wishart
The hon. Lady will not be surprised to hear me say that I wholeheartedly agree with her. We have a cost of living crisis and it was announced today that inflation is going through the roof, yet we are here debating our income and going over whether we think it is right and appropriate for MPs to earn even more than the very generous salaries that we already get for looking after constituents.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
People will know that, as a breast cancer surgeon, I have practised in the past while trying to maintain my licence. I remember being pilloried on the front of the Daily Mail for helping out over Christmas when my colleague had a heart attack. I have no issue with second jobs being regulated, whether by time, money or whatever way the House chooses, but is this not being used as a smokescreen? The issue that was raised at the beginning of this month was not about a second job. It was about corruption, selling influence, selling contracts and selling peerages—and second jobs is being used as a cover for that.
Pete Wishart
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend, who gets right to the heart of the matter. This is nothing but a smokescreen from the Government, who have thrown this out here to try to excuse their appalling behaviour over the past couple of weeks. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend. She is right. She is a distinguished breast cancer surgeon and the way in which she was traduced, with the assistance of the Conservative party, for doing her job, helping out and doing that work for nothing was absolutely and utterly appalling. They should be ashamed of themselves for what they did.
Participation in Debates
Philippa Whitford Excerpts(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Rees-Mogg
That will be a happy day, a day of jubilee and song, and I hope we do not have to wait until the platinum jubilee before it happens. But it will happen partly automatically, because the motions will one day expire. Of course I am enormously keen to get back to normal, when it is reasonable to do so, and in that we will be following the rest of the country. The fact that we are able to do as much as we can do should make us proud of our democracy. We have shown that democracy is essential and it is being carried out, and it is working in the interests of the nation. People are here and they are arguing over the contentious issues, and this is so fundamental, but it is slightly sotto voce compared with the full-blooded call we have for the interests of our constituents when the Chamber is packed, the Prime Minister is at the Dispatch Box and that roar goes up, when the real pressure is on, to ensure that, on behalf of the British people, we hold Her Majesty’s Government to account.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) [V]
On 2 November, the Leader of the House suggested that MPs such as myself, who are unable to attend the House, are shirking their duty, but it is he who has excluded me from important legislative debates. I welcome the fact that he will now reconsider, but he keeps referring to the “extremely clinically vulnerable” and yet says that this will not include MPs in the shielding category. So may I ask him: exactly who will decide which MPs are accorded the right to speak and will he clarify what medical qualifications they will hold?
Mr Rees-Mogg
It is not for me to determine the medical advice that is received by Members of Parliament, but if they are told by their doctors that they are extremely clinically vulnerable, they will be extremely clinically vulnerable; I am sure we can trust doctors to know which of their patients are extremely clinically vulnerable or not.
Business of the House
Philippa Whitford Excerpts(3 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend makes an important case for those who work for Members of Parliament. It is a matter for the House of Commons Commission, rather than for me personally, but I do know that the Commission will be urging Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority-funded staff to work from home between now and 2 December. I know that this will be difficult for some members of staff, as it has been before, but it is important to minimise the number of people on the estate to those who have an absolutely essential function here that is to do with the operation of the Chamber and the House at large.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) [V]
A significant number of MPs, like myself, have been excluded from speaking in debates on legislation for the last five months, due to being at high risk from covid or having a vulnerable family member, and I take great offence at the inference of the Leader of the House that I am somehow shirking my duty by not being willing to travel hundreds of miles each way every week. With England going into lockdown, the Prime Minister has just said that the most vulnerable should only work from home, so I, too, call on the Leader of the House to restore and maintain full virtual participation until next year to ensure that all Members can fully represent their constituents throughout the covid crisis and the end of the EU transition.
European Union (Withdrawal)
Philippa Whitford Excerpts(4 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Blackford
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; he is absolutely correct. It is delusional, and the Government should start telling the truth to people.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that what we hear from Europe is that there is not actually any proposal on the table from the Government, so there has been no serious negotiation to get a deal, and it is all a fairy tale and a sham?
Ian Blackford
I do not know what the Prime Minister believes, but he was asked several times today by Members in this House to tell us what proposition the Government are making. There is none. It is a sham. This Government are heading us towards the cliff edge of no deal. That is the reality.
The deepening of the democratic deficit under the Prime Minister is despicable. This decision is an outrageous assault on basic democratic principles, yet the Prime Minister and his cronies will argue that this is normal. A suspension, he argues, is quite right and proper —what ridiculousness. I know that the Prime Minister has never been one to deal in facts, but let me make it clear for Members. In the last 40 years, Parliament has never been prorogued for longer than three weeks. In most cases, it has been prorogued for only a week or less. To try to argue that five weeks is normal is, if we are being polite, disingenuous.
The reason we are here today—the reason why we, for want of a better phrase, are taking back control of the Order Paper on a cross-party basis—is to stop the Prime Minister running down the clock and obstructing the democratic right of MPs to debate, vote and represent the will of the people who sent us to this place. This shameful act from the Prime Minister is because he knows there is no majority here for a no-deal Brexit, because he knows there is no support from the public for a no-deal Brexit and because he knows what we all know: that a no-deal Brexit is catastrophic for the lives of citizens across these islands.
Just in office, the Prime Minister is toying with our democratic processes. Ruth Fox, director of the Hansard Society, said that it was an “affront to parliamentary democracy”. Why? Because the Prime Minister wants things his own way, and at any cost. The real reason he cannot bear for Parliament to sit and debate is that he knows he does not have the majority to support his disastrous plans to destroy our economy with a no-deal Brexit. What an embarrassment to parliamentary democracy. Well, the Prime Minister cannot stop MPs doing their jobs. We will be heard, and democracy must be respected.
Just last week, I was proud that my party signed a declaration alongside MPs from across the parties in Church House, warning the Government:
“Any attempt to prevent parliament sitting, to force through a no-deal Brexit, will be met by strong and widespread democratic resistance.”
Has the Prime Minister still not listened? Even today, a cross-party group of politicians is in Edinburgh for a full hearing in the Court of Session, attempting to prevent the Prime Minister from proroguing Parliament. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) has already called on the Prime Minister to swear on oath his reasons for the Prorogation of Parliament. Will the Prime Minister do so? I think we know the answer to that. We also have a group of experts in constitutional law, human rights and justice arguing in The Times that the recent decision to prorogue Parliament sets a dangerous precedent and, furthermore, is incompatible with Executive accountability to Parliament as prescribed by the constitution.
Has the Prime Minister no shame? This is a blind power grab, showing total arrogance and contempt for the electorate. Instead of giving the people a new Prime Minister who listens to their wishes, he has robbed the people of all power. What does shutting down Parliament on a whim mean for this Prime Minister or a future Prime Minister? For us from Scotland, what protection do we have if any UK Prime Minister sought to shut down the Scottish Parliament? We need to protect our Parliament from this Prime Minister.
It is clear that this House is not supportive of the Prime Minister’s actions. This emergency debate is crucial, as MPs today need to carve a way forward to allow emergency legislation against no deal to be passed. The cross-party Bill seeks to ensure that the UK will not leave the EU without a deal unless Parliament consents to such an outcome. It will also require the Prime Minister to then extend article 50. That is a crucial step to prevent a catastrophic no deal, to protect our economy and our communities. This is how we can come together to avoid a no-deal Brexit, to protect the interests of citizens across these islands and, fundamentally to protect not simply the rights of Parliament or parliamentarians but the rights of the people.
The denial of Parliament having its say denies people in Scotland and across the UK their say against a no-deal Brexit. We in the SNP cannot countenance that. I urge Members to unite to stop a no-deal Brexit, to stop this Prime Minister and this dictatorship, and to restore democracy. Tonight, it is our turn to take back control. Tonight, the Prime Minister is going to be stopped in his tracks. The Prime Minister has tried to rob the people of their power. Now it is our time to rob him of his.
Business of the House
Philippa Whitford Excerpts(5 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Pete Wishart
The Environment Secretary, from a sedentary position, invites me to consider the Stuarts. If he would like to go down that route and find a period in history where the Scots had precedence in terms of how this country was governed, he could not give a better example—I am sure the hon. Member for North East Somerset would agree with that fully.
I like this innovation. It a good, creative way to be looking at how we do our business. It is an example, at last, of this House taking back control. What surprises me more than anything else is that those who called the loudest and gave the biggest clarion calls for this place to take back control are those who have the biggest problem with the House doing that very thing. It is strange to see these Conservative Members—I see them all in their places—getting ready to try to make sure that this motion is defeated and things are once again returned to the hands of the Executive.
I am familiar with the speech made by the hon. Member for North East Somerset, as I have heard it before; he talks about the authority of the Executive over the legislature. In terms of the constitution of this place, he is absolutely right, but we are in totally uncharted territory, and in a hung Parliament, we have to look for these constitutional novelties. This motion should be congratulated. The way that it has been engineered and designed by the right hon. Member for West Dorset is almost elegant in defining its purpose. We have this opportunity to do this. It is one the Government could have given us, but they chose not to and so to complain about the fact that it has been made up to the House to do this is churlish.
Talking of churlishness, I have to say to the Leader of the House that I found her speech in response to this petulant and irritable. She was totally ungracious about the way this House has decided to do its business—it is what the House has decided. I find it astonishing that this Government are going to vote against this business motion, as they had an opportunity to table an amendment. I cannot understand why they chose not to do so.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
My hon. Friend says that it is great that the House is doing this now, but should it not have been done about two years ago, after the Prime Minister said she would consult across the House and across the UK to agree a plan before going to Europe? She did exactly the opposite.
Pete Wishart
My hon. Friend is entirely right about that, and of course what she says is the case. The Government had the opportunities to reach out to try to determine how this House wanted to progress this whole issue of Brexit, but they chose not to do that. They have spent the past two years talking to themselves, trying to persuade recalcitrant Back Benchers to back a deal that they no longer favour. They are talking to the Democratic Unionist party, at great expense, to ensure that they can secure that party’s support. We have had two wasted years, and it is therefore right that this House does take back control and presents the motion before us today.
Business of the House
Philippa Whitford Excerpts(5 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the need for local authority finances to be properly interrogated and for councils to take swift action to address any issues raised by auditors, but, as he will be aware, internal audit arrangements are a matter for each council to consider as part of its own governance arrangements. I am sure he will agree, however, that elected councillors must be transparent about financial arrangements, which are integral to local accountability, and I encourage him to seek an Adjournment debate or to raise his concerns directly with Ministers in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
The Government’s negative resolution statutory instrument on human medicines contains a serious shortage protocol to allow pharmacists to dispense a completely different drug in times of shortage but—critically—without consulting the prescriber, as is the rule now. It is clearly to prepare for drug shortages after Brexit. Does the Leader of the House not agree that such a radical change of medical responsibility requires debate and scrutiny?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady raises an important point, and I am aware of this long-standing protocol. She might be aware that the official Opposition have prayed against the human medicines regulations 2019 and that therefore there will almost certainly be the opportunity to debate them. She could also raise the matter at Health and Social Care questions on Tuesday 19 February.