European Union: UK Membership

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Paul Davies]

I could not possibly say.

Furthermore, some argue that rejoining the EU would allow the UK to have a say in shaping the rules and regulations that govern the single market, and that that influence would be crucial in ensuring that our interests were represented and that we could advocate policies that would benefit our economy and society.

On the other hand, there are valid arguments against rejoining the European Union.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful to have the opportunity to debate membership of the EU. We know about the economic benefit of membership in securing trade, but does my hon. Friend agree that, at a time of real global instability, political union is also important?

[Paul Davies]

We have discussed that in the Chamber recently, and we have seen the fantastic work that the Prime Minister is doing with our close neighbours. Given what we face from Russia—a threat to all of us— working as closely as we can across Europe is crucial at the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Mundell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) on setting out the nature of this debate so well.

May I tell my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) that many of us who were here during the Brexit negotiations and remember the pain of those evenings—as well as the fisticuffs—know only too well that the scars cut deep? That is also why Robert, who I congratulate on his petition, needs to know the truth. If the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) was in the country, I am sure that he would be telling all of us that we need straight talking, so let us have some straight talking.

Brexit is a disaster. It is a disaster by anybody’s metric, not least those according to whom it was purported to be a route to the promised land. The pandemic spared some of the blushes of those who still try to claim that we have got some elusive sovereignty as a result of leaving the European Union, but we can see the damage. Our constituents can see the damage.

Many Members have already cited some of the relevant figures; let me cite some more. As a result of Brexit, 1.8 million fewer jobs have been created in our economy, and that number is likely to rise to 3 million by 2035. Some 16,500 small businesses have stopped exporting to Europe all together. Those of us who were part of the parliamentary delegation last week had the pleasure of listening to Lord Frost trying to argue that up was down, but we know the truth for our constituents. We have seen the damage.

Indeed, we have seen that what was a bad situation in leaving the European Union was compounded by the ways in which the previous Administration chose to leave it. What on earth made them decide that we would not even share security alerts with our colleagues in Europe? How on earth is it in the interests of British farmers to not even share food security alerts with our colleagues, simply because the system had the word “Europe” in the title? The border operating model is adding billions of pounds to the cost of food in this country. What on earth made them think that adding £145 every time that a pallet of food came over here was somehow in the interests of British consumers or indeed British businesses? And that is before we even get on to the uncertain geopolitical situation that we are in. By any metric, it is easy to understand why Robert brought forward the petition.

To me, the Brexiteers are like those people—we all have met them on a night out—who join the group, start a fight in the club and get everyone kicked out, but who still maintain, three hours later, as they are walking everyone around a completely empty industrial estate somewhere, that they know a great club that everyone can get into. The challenge for those of us who recognise the damage done to this country—the damage to our national reputation and to our economies, communities and values from the idea that our European neighbours and friends would feel in any way unwelcome—is that we do not want to be that weirdo who says, “Well, if we walk around the streets a few more times, we can go back. It’s fine: the bouncers won’t recognise us; we can walk back in.” The brutal reality is that we have left the European Union, and we owe it to people who care about this country—I think everybody in this Chamber does, even if they still purport to believe that Brexit was a good idea—to talk truths to our constituents and work out what we can do to salvage what is left. That is what today’s debate is all about.

Nobody here is saying that rejoining should be the sole priority of the Government. We know full well that, because we are facing a salvage operation, Europe will only talk to us once more. Who can blame them? For years, we were like that difficult, awkward man our aunt married, who turned up at Christmas and always caused a fuss—and thank God she divorced him. Now we appear acting as if nothing has changed and that we should be invited to Sunday lunch. We owe respect to our colleagues in Europe when they are dealing with challenges such as Putin and economic uncertainty, and looking at what we can all do to secure peace in the middle east. They are owed some respect from us, and although sometimes it appears, frankly, as if we think our colleagues in Europe do not read our newspapers, I promise that they do.

The challenge for all of us is that we owe truth to our colleagues in Europe and truth to our constituents. It would take years to renegotiate to rejoin the European Union, even if we were to get a fast-tracked arrangement and they could be confident that we would not change our mind again. I recognise that the public are far ahead of politicians in this debate, including all of us scarred by those Brexit years. It would take years, because it would mean going around every individual country. It is worth remembering that our membership of the European Union was vetoed twice by France, because that is the way the process works. It is not a quick process. Those of us who are passionate about our relationship with Europe and what is possible—I stand here as chair of the Labour movement for Europe—hold our constituents in our hearts, and they need us to do what we can in the next 18 months, or else the damage that Brexit has done to the country will be so irreparable that there will be little left to negotiate.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am grateful for all that my hon. Friend has done on this issue. Does she agree that it would be really helpful now, nine years on, to have a comprehensive impact assessment? In 2016, we talked about the projected harm that Brexit would cause. Now that we have the evidence, should Government prepare an assessment, so that we can make sound judgments on the basis of that?

[Ms Creasy]

I do not disagree with my hon. Friend, but it is so plain to see how we have cut ourselves off. Even in the pandemic, and initially standing up to Putin in Ukraine, we were outside the room shouting in. We owe it to our constituents now to be as brutal as we can be and humble as we need to be to make the case for what we can do in the next 18 months.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I know we have mentioned Thursday and Friday, but I think we are on Sunday already.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The York Central development site is pivotal in driving forward York and North Yorkshire�s economy, and at the heart of that site will be a Government hub. Will the Minister meet me to ensure that that hub is not separate from the rest of the site, but integrated in the economic vision that we have for York?

[Georgia Gould]

It is critical that Government property and Government assets support economic growth in constituencies, including that of my hon. Friend, and I would be delighted to meet her to discuss that further.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Wednesday 30th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising this, because it is an important issue and I do not think we discuss it enough in this House. We continue to see mounting evidence of appalling atrocities against civilians and unacceptable restrictions on humanit-arian access. Working with international partners— including as penholder at the UN Security Council, as he knows—to end the violence, secure humanitarian access and ensure the protection of civilians is a major priority.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q3. This Labour Government have set up a child poverty taskforce, which is determined to move 4.3 million children in poverty into a better future. However, we also inherited 2.1 million older people in poverty. Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree to set up a pensioner poverty taskforce so that older people do not have to worry about paying for their housing, food and heating costs, ensuring that they have dignity in later life?

[The Prime Minister]

The scale of poverty that we inherited in this country is truly appalling, with over 4 million children now growing up in low-income families. We will deliver on our manifesto commitment to tackle child poverty, as we did last time in government. We will publish our strategy in the spring.

NATO and European Political Community Meetings

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 22nd July 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Member for that question. First, I was able to make clear our unshakeable commitment to the nuclear deterrent, something I did in opposition. I have been able to make that absolutely clear as Prime Minister, and it was very important that I did so from the outset. In relation to what may have happened in the past, I will not speculate, but I believe that NATO is the most successful alliance the world has ever known, and that it is as needed now as it was when it was founded. The then Labour Government were very proud to be a founder member of NATO, and it was very important for me to reaffirm our unshakeable support for NATO. The world is a more volatile place, the challenges are greater now than they have been for many years, and I think that NATO is as needed now and as relevant now as it has ever been in its history.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the leadership he showed not just at NATO, but at the European Political Community. Working together and collaborating are important, not least in the unstable world that we are in. Could he set out what discussions he had about the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement in the light of its renegotiation deadlines next year?

[The Prime Minister]

I was able to have early discussion about the EU-UK trade arrangements of a preliminary sort. There is an appetite for that discussion—no one pretends that it is an easy discussion—and I am pleased to have appointed a Minister, the Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office, who will take responsibility for that important work. It does not involve rejoining the EU; it does involve resetting and improving the relationship we have with our EU allies.

Debate on the Address

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Wednesday 17th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I congratulate all new and returning Members on their election success? The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) is right in saying that it is the greatest of privileges to be able to represent our constituents. I certainly pay real attention to my constituents in York Central and assure them that I will do all I can to ensure that their voices are heard, not least with the privilege of being in power. We must make the most of every opportunity, as today’s King’s Speech has clearly demonstrated for all to see.

First, on stabilising the economy, I say to those on our Treasury Bench that York Central will play its part not only by creating 12,500 new jobs in the York Central development, taking forward advanced rail technologies and biosciences, but through BioYorkshire, with 4,000 green-collar jobs and a green new deal for York and wider Yorkshire. It will be a huge privilege to work with Front- Bench colleagues to see that come to fruition.

It is not just about the economy. We will build the homes and the public services that we longed to see in Opposition. We will overturn the injustice that has crushed so many hopes and so many communities, entrenched now in inequality, and ensure that we build those services in the interests of the people we represent.

Labour’s employment rights Bill will be so refreshing to workers. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; I am a proud trade unionist. I am proud of the work of trade unions: working people, working together for a better future, ending fire and rehire and the disgrace of minimum service level agreements, and giving workers fresh rights from the day they start work. I ask my Front-Bench team to consider my private Member’s Bill to outlaw bullying at work, ensuring a legal definition of bullying alongside discrimination and harassment and providing a route to an employment tribunal to seek justice, alongside an enforcement body to improve workplace culture. It could be transformative, reduce absenteeism and increase productivity, and it needs including.

I stand here as a Co-operative MP, of which I am so proud. I will ensure that we embed our values in the Government’s agenda, growing the co-operative sector, ensuring community energy alongside Great British Energy, creating those safer high streets and enabling local ownership so that assets in our communities are given back to our communities.

Labour is determined to build the homes that our constituents desperately need. York has a serious housing crisis. Council housing and first homes will show that Labour is on the side of families and communities. With rents out of control and housing disparity failing our communities as the market determines everything, we can once again control the right that people should have to live in a safe home. The renters’ rights Bill and the draft leasehold and commonhold reforms will make a difference to my constituents, and I am proud that they were in today’s speech.

I am still on the campaign trail on Airbnbs and short-term holiday lets. The last Government said before the summer that they would legislate and regulate, but they did not. I trust that my Front-Bench team will now bring forward not a registration scheme—we know where these things are—but a licensing scheme so that we can control the growth of short-term holiday lets. There are 2,000 of them in my constituency—one in 10 houses. We need to take control of all housing. I gently say to the Minister that we have been waiting 68 years and counting for a local plan. We need York’s local plan to be delivered.

It will no longer be like pulling teeth to get action on NHS dentistry. My hon. Friend the Minister is already at work delivering for our future, but we should look at the Health Committee’s report from the last Parliament on NHS dentistry. It set out a blueprint to really reform dentistry, to ensure access, treatment and better oral health.

As we know, the NHS as a whole is on its knees. As a former physio, I know the importance of getting it back on its feet again. When we left office in 2010, the NHS was the most efficient health service in the world. Our ambition in government must be to restore those credentials, and not just in health but in social care, too. This must be the Parliament of social care, to complete the deal that people can have security in later life, this Government will take care of them and they do not need to fear those latter years.

There is so much we need to do on health. We have heard today about the Mental Health Act and the tobacco and vapes Bill, and so much more is on our agenda. I will do everything, as I have for over 30 years, to work for a better health service built by that radical, reforming 1945 Government. I trust that this Government will be as radical and as reforming as that, ensuring the NHS is safe in public hands.

Finally, I turn to education. I say to our education team that we need a new approach. We need to rip up that behaviourist approach that is doing so much harm to our young people, and introduce a nurturing, therapeutic approach to education. I am heartened to hear about the children’s wellbeing Bill, which is so needed at this time, and reviewing the curriculum and ensuring that young children leave school not just with good results but as confident young people, whose wellbeing and mental health are as important as their exam results.

I further call on the Government to take action on academy trusts, which have spun out of control. We need accountability, and education funding spent on actual education, not on executive salaries and bonuses, as it currently is. We need education brought back under local authority control, so that the whole system can hold together and work together. Those changes at Ofsted are necessary, but we need to ensure that all our children have access to a nurturing education system that will make a difference to them and their future. I will work with our Front-Bench team to ensure that we are looking after children, no matter what challenges they face at home and school.

Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2024 Commons Chamber

[John Glen]

I thank my hon. Friend for her remarks and for her constructive point around how the arm’s length body needs to evolve and fit the communities’ expectations. I am absolutely committed to that. She mentioned her constituent, Sally-Anne. Every individual is a priority to me as the Minister, and we want to deliver this as efficiently as we possibly can. She talked about benefits disregards, and I have also mentioned tax disregards. The systems need to recognise what we are doing with these payments to individuals. We have tried to address everything we can think of to make this flow as quickly as possible, and I hope that that will be the case. My hon. Friend is welcome to speak to me again if there are other issues she wants to raise.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

We are indebted to Sir Brian Langstaff for the comprehensive work that he has undertaken. However, it leaves many questions about the transparency and accountability of Government—to this place and to Committees but also to the public. Can we ensure that those infected and affected are involved in co-producing the outcomes of the recommendations? Can we also ensure that the separate Departments are held to account, not least the Department of Health and Social Care, given that so many of the recommendations will fall on that Department, and that the Secretary of State for that Department is directly accountable, in this new spirit of transparency to this House and beyond?

[John Glen]

Of course, many of these events happened over a very wide timespan going back 40 or 50 years, but the issue is what we can do going forward. The hon. Lady makes a reasonable point about involving the infected and affected communities in this process. One of the things that I have mentioned is the arm’s length body having sufficient distance from Government to give confidence to the community. We need to get that right, and we need to ensure that the appropriate governance is in place so that the representatives of those communities can have meaningful influence in how they engage, and on the wider issues that she mentioned.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Wednesday 17th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Saqib Bhatti]

I thank my hon. Friend for that important question. Ensuring that the UK’s life sciences sector can grow and access the variety of skills it needs to support innovation, including the adoption of AI, is a key commitment of the life sciences vision. To deliver that we are working cross-Government, including with the Department for Education and DHSC, industry and academia, to ensure that our ecosystem can deliver and attract interdisciplinary talent. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and her Department are also working to ensure that the NHS can take advantage of the opportunity that AI represents for healthcare. In addition, DSIT is actively represented on NHS England’s radiology and pathology boards, where AI and skills are regularly discussed.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Health and Social Care Committee’s report into the digital technologies of the future clearly demonstrated the opportunities that sit before us if we get the basics right. AI is not only of use for increasing productivity in diagnostics, but also when setting treatment plans and in pharmacology. How is the Minister setting out a strategic plan for how AI can be invested in the NHS for the future, as Labour has done with our “Fit for the Future” plan?

[Saqib Bhatti]

The hon. Lady is right to say that AI can play a great role in improving the way we treat conditions, provided that it is implemented in an ethical, safe and responsible way. One great example of that is Brainomix, which is already being used in 37 NHS healthcare trusts. It means that the in/out time has been greatly reduced, and three times more people who previously would have not been able to live independently are now able to do so because of the use of AI. That is also being used in additional critical pathways, and lessons are learned. I know the NHS is working closely with DHSC to ensure that AI is used effectively.

Iran-Israel Update

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 15th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I spoke explicitly to the Prime Minister of Israel, who did that when I spoke to him the very next day. We have made absolutely crystal clear our concerns about what has happened, and as I have previously pointed out, we are now looking through the preliminary findings. We are pleased to see the early suspension of two officers involved; now what we need is reform of Israel’s deconfliction mechanism to ensure the future safety of aid workers.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

In speaking to the Prime Minister of Israel this evening and calling for restraint, will the Prime Minister put that into action? Should the Prime Minister of Israel say that he will further assault Gaza or impede aid, will the Prime Minister action that restraint and call for an immediate ceasefire?

[The Prime Minister]

We have already called for an immediate humanitarian pause so that more aid can get in and hostages can be released. As I say, we have tripled our aid commitment, and are bringing aid in by air, land and sea, together with our allies.

Acting Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Alex Burghart]

That will be a matter for the Prime Minister. As my hon. Friend will have heard me say a few moments ago, it is very important that this process is followed thoroughly and diligently to make sure that the correct appointment is made.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I also want to put on the record my thanks to Mr Rob Behrens, not least for the way he supported one of my constituents. However, my concern is that the Minister and the Prime Minister have had plenty of time to review the appointment. By putting an interim person in place, there will be disruption when a new person comes into place. Does the Minister not also recognise that there is much work to be done in reducing the number of complaints and addressing the real needs of our constituents, who need redress for the serious issues they are raising?

Scrutiny of Secretaries of State in the House of Lords

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Wednesday 20th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Patrick Grady]

Absolutely. That is precisely why it is important that we have the opportunity to draw these points to the Government’s attention. Incidentally, I do not know whether he has written it down or said it anywhere, but around the time of his appointment there were indications from Lord Cameron that he would be happy to co-operate with accountability mechanisms, but they do not seem to have been put in place, and I will come back to that.

Accountability is particularly important, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, because we are living through times of significant global turmoil, with perhaps some of the biggest threats to the established rules-based order of peace and security since the second world war. There is no guaranteed or permanent mechanism for Members of this elected House as a whole to directly question and scrutinise the work of the Government’s chief diplomat, their roving ambassador on the world stage, their voice in the corridors of foreign powers: His Majesty’s Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the right hon. David Cameron, Baron Cameron of Chipping Norton.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for bringing forward this debate. Our constituents are writing to us at this time about the challenging situation we see in Gaza, and clearly they want answers from the person who is making decisions. Given the lack of accountability in the system when there could be war crimes being committed—not least by our own country in trading arms—it is absolutely right that we should have the opportunity to scrutinise. Does he believe that we need to ensure that we have a Foreign Secretary who is elected democratically from our country and that they should not be sitting in the House of Lords?

[Patrick Grady]

Yes, precisely. The key point is accountability to this elected House, and I will come on to that in more detail. We have been elected to hold the Government to account, and we are being denied that opportunity because of decisions made by the Prime Minister.

Much of this comes down to what the Prime Minister and the Government wanted to achieve by the appointment of David Cameron in the first place. It might have shaken up the world of breaking news and podcast analysis for a few days. It might have signalled some kind of change in direction of the Government’s priorities. It might have calmed the blue wall, even if at the same time it was slightly worrying the red wall. It also sends a strange message to every Conservative Member of this House—perhaps every Member other than the Prime Minister himself—that none of them are good enough or have the necessary skills or experience at this point in time to be the Foreign Secretary. That applies not least to the immediately previous Foreign Secretary. He may have been redeployed to be Home Secretary, but he has still essentially been judged by the Prime Minister not to be the right person for the job.

The end result, as we have already heard in interventions, is woefully inadequate opportunities for Members of the Commons to scrutinise effectively the work of the Foreign Secretary and, by extension, the Foreign Office as a whole. Many of us have a huge amount of respect and regard for the Minister for International Development, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) —not something people will often hear SNP Members say about Conservative Ministers. However, he now has to effectively deputise for the Foreign Secretary in this House, without any additional ministerial support having been provided in the Commons team, as far as I can tell, so by definition he has more to deal with than before. It must stretch him and his team, no matter how deftly and effectively they try to work. No matter how capable any of the Ministers are, none of them can truly answer on behalf of the Foreign Secretary, for the simple reason that they are not the Foreign Secretary. They will not have been in the meetings he has been in, been on the trips he has been on or attended the summits he has attended, so all their answers, all their responses to questions and all their positions outlined in statements are second-hand at best.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes), who cannot be here this evening, wrote a powerful letter to the Procedure Committee when it was considering this matter. He highlighted the ongoing situation of his constituent Jagtar Singh Johal, who has been arbitrarily detained by the Government of India for nearly seven years. I have heard from many of my constituents who share those concerns about the treatment of Mr Johal. My hon. Friend’s letter, and his point of order in the House on 10 January, drew attention to what he called the “extraordinary lack of response” from the Foreign Secretary to letters about this case and his frustration about not being able to raise these concerns directly with the Foreign Secretary on the Floor of the House. Such frustrations and concerns were present in other evidence taken by the Procedure Committee and have been heard in other departmental questions, urgent questions, statements, points of order, in Westminster Hall debates and even in interventions right here this evening.

The Procedure Committee considered a range of options and possibilities for enhanced scrutiny of Lords Ministers, particularly the Secretary of State. It looked at previous suggestions of holding question sessions in Westminster Hall or one of the larger Committee Rooms, or convening a special Grand Committee either here in the Chamber or elsewhere, but it came to the conclusion that the simplest and most straightforward way to scrutinise the Foreign Secretary would be for him appear in the Chamber during departmental questions and for any relevant UQs or statements and to answer questions from the Bar of the House.

The Hansard Society suggested in its evidence that there may be some practical and presentational issues with the Foreign Secretary standing, presumably at a lectern, at the Bar of the House while other Ministers continued to answer from the Dispatch Box. I think the word used was “ridiculous”. Perhaps some of us would have some sympathy with that, but it should not be insurmountable. Then there is the question of whether the Lords would need to give permission for one of its Members to appear in the Commons or whether the Commons would need to agree to some kind of resolution to make changes to its Standing Orders. But none of that should be insurmountable. All of these issues, starting with the actual appointment of the Foreign Secretary, are in the gift of the Government.

Ultimately, whether the Foreign Secretary comes to answer questions in this House, like pretty much everything else that happens here, is for the Government to decide. The Government can make it happen or they can choose not to make it happen. By choosing not to do so, they will send a message about exactly what kind of regard they have for this House, for the mandate we have for our constituents and, therefore, for our constituents themselves.

We can recognise that the appointment was not totally without precedent. The Procedure Committee’s report and the very thorough and helpful Library briefing on the subject both list various examples of Ministers and Secretaries of State who have served in the Lords in recent and not-so-recent times, but that does not mean that those situations were not also sub-optimal in how the Ministers were scrutinised and held to account. There have been some attempts to distinguish between Secretaries of State for various Government Departments and those that have been considered great offices of state. However, the concept of a “great office of state” is not written down anywhere, and any Prime Minister at any time could choose to change or divide the responsibilities of the Treasury, Home Office or the FCDO, which not so long ago was the Foreign and Commonwealth Office before one of the many former Prime Ministers we have had in recent years merged it with the Department for International Development.

In each case where a Secretary of State has been appointed in the Lords, whether that was Lord Mandelson as Business Secretary or Baroness Morgan as Culture Secretary, the governing party at the time said that it was all fine and there were lines of accountability to the Commons, and the official Opposition at the time were suitably outraged and said it was an appalling state of affairs that would never happen on their watch. That tells us a lot about the interchangeability of the two major parties in UK politics and the imperative of any incumbent Government of whatever colour to maintain the established status quo of constitutional convention and practice.

Perhaps that starts to get us to the broader points of principle at play and the broader question of whether the Government and the Prime Minister, or indeed any past or future UK Governments and Prime Ministers, really care all that much about scrutiny by this House and the role of the Commons more generally. The established principle in this Parliament and the devolved institutions is that the Executive is drawn from, and accountable to and through, the legislature. There are plenty of examples around the world where members of the Executive—the equivalent of Ministers and Secretaries of State—are not drawn from the legislature. In many of those cases, however—we think particularly of the United States—there is an incredibly thorough vetting and approval process. Appointment hearings in the United States Senate can take days or weeks, even for relatively junior appointments.

Closer to home, in Scotland’s Parliament—indeed, we saw it happen today in Wales with the appointment of the new First Minister—the appointment of Scottish Government Cabinet Secretaries and Ministers must be agreed to by Parliament before they are approved by the King. Incidentally, that includes the Lord Advocate and Solicitor General for Scotland, who are not Members of the Scottish Parliament but appear in its Chamber, which is designed to accommodate them, so they can sit or stand and answer questions and be held to account by the elected Members.

A process for approval of Ministers by a vote of the legislature could quite easily be adopted in this Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) tried to introduce something precisely to that end through a ten-minute rule Bill in a previous Session. In some respects it ought to be a formality, because if the Government can command a majority that accepts the Prime Minister’s decisions about ministerial appointments, it should be able get those appointments through. At the very least it would allow some public deliberation and questioning about the wisdom of individual appointments and the relevant experience, suitability, and perhaps outside interests, of Ministers-designate. I am sure that people might have had questions about the Foreign Secretary’s outside interests upon his appointment. Such accountability is not something that a Government confident in their decision making and command of a majority in the House should be afraid of.

There have also been questions about reciprocity: if Ministers who are Lords are to appear before the Commons to take questions, should Ministers who are MPs appear before the Lords? On the face of it that might not seem an entirely unreasonable question, but it comes back to the point about accountability, which is relevant to the intervention from the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). Members of the House of Lords have been appointed to their positions for the rest of their lives by the Prime Minister of the day, or perhaps because they are a bishop in the Church of England or someone’s ancestor. Members of the House of Commons are accountable to their voters. Our constituents make a choice about who should represent them and we make representations on their behalf, not least by asking questions of Ministers—that comes back to the point made by the hon. Member for York Central.

The question of whether the Minister is elected is slightly beside the point. In this debate, I do not expect a response from the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) on behalf of the people in his constituency; I am putting questions on behalf of the people of Glasgow North to the Government, and I expect and look forward to a response from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Cabinet Office. As the hon. Lady said, our constituency inboxes are full of huge issues, none bigger at the moment than the situation in Israel and Gaza and the need for an immediate ceasefire. However, there is no way for any of us to put those views directly to the Foreign Secretary. I have no method of putting that point on the record directly to him, and of receiving a response on behalf of the people of Glasgow North.

That leads us not just to questions about the scrutiny of Lords Ministers by the Commons, but to the role and purpose of the second Chamber, the accountability of unelected parliamentarians, the relationship between both Houses and the relationship between the legislature and the Executive. That goes back to the point that I, and many others, have made before: meaningful reform of the Lords is not possible without meaningful reform of the Commons. Meaningful reform of the Commons would mean the Government—in particular, the Prime Minister—giving up significant powers of patronage, appointment and executive control. Neither of the main parties wants to give that up once it has achieved power.

There is a reason why the Labour party has been promising and failing to deliver meaningful reform of the House of Lords for over 100 years. Giving up the power to directly appoint Members to the House of Lords would be a significant diminution of the Prime Minister’s powers of patronage. Fully or even partially electing the Lords would inevitably challenge the assumed supremacy of the Commons. The first priority of any UK Government on acquiring power is to retain that power; that will not change after the next election, no matter the outcome.

The Minister will tell us all to wait patiently for the Government’s official response to the Procedure Committee’s report, and perhaps even tell us that it will be published soon or before the recess. We can take a pretty good guess at what it will say. If the Government wanted the Foreign Secretary to appear before this House at departmental questions or at any other point, they would have already made arrangements for that to happen.

Constituents in Glasgow North, some of whom were represented by the hon. Member for Rochdale (George Galloway) once upon a time, will look on with confusion, disappointment and increasing disenchantment. The Scottish Parliament is not perfect, but its procedures for scrutiny of Ministers and accessibility to the wider public are light years beyond what is in place in Westminster. Just as there is reason why the Labour party has repeatedly failed to reform the Lords, there is reason why the SNP refuses to take seats in the unelected House.

When Scotland becomes independent, perhaps there will be some kind of second Chamber of Parliament, or a stronger system of participative and deliberative democracy through citizens’ assemblies to explore proposals before the legislature takes them forward. Whatever the shape and form, it will be decided by the people of Scotland, who are and always will be sovereign in Scotland, irrespective of the conventions and traditions of Westminster. A Foreign Secretary in an independent Scotland—certainly one with an SNP Government—would work to uphold peace and human rights around the world, invest in poverty reduction and tackling climate change, and represent a country proud at last to be free of nuclear weapons of mass destruction.

The longer Westminster diverges from that vision, transparency and accountability, and the more Prime Ministers, of whatever flavour from whatever wing of whatever party, think they can avoid scrutiny by elected parliamentarians and appoint their friends, donors and allies to positions of power without consequences, the more the people in Glasgow North and across Scotland will come to realise the difference that we can make and will make with independence.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) on bringing forward what is a genuinely interesting and surprisingly well-attended Adjournment debate. I think it is the best-attended Adjournment debate I have taken for some time. Were I in mischievous mood, I would gently refer him to the answers that I gave him on 18 November, 29 February and 12 March and resume my place, but alas mischief eludes me and I will give him as full an answer as I can.

Obviously the Government are considering the very good and serious report into this situation from the Procedure Committee. It is not an anomalous situation—it has arisen before—but it is right that we should consider it in a modern light. In the meantime, while we are waiting for the Government’s full consideration, there are a number of ways in which the Foreign Secretary is being held to account by Parliament as a whole. In the House of Lords, he answered questions on 21 November, 5 December, 15 January, 16 January, 13 February, 12 March and 15 March.

I know that the House of Lords is not a place where the Scottish National party goes to play. As the hon. Gentleman knows, because we have debated this on a number of occasions, I think that is a great shame. I understand that the party’s plans and vision to break up the kingdom failed—with the support of the Scottish people, I am pleased to say. After that juncture, SNP Members would have done well to accept that that was a once-in-a-generation vote and that they were plausibly going to be here for some time if people continued to elect SNP Members to this House. It would therefore have been wise of them to stick a few people in the upper House so that the views of their party and that part of the electorate could be represented in that part of Parliament. They chose not to. Consequently they are now unable to question the Foreign Secretary when he stands to answer questions in the Lords, but that is their prerogative.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister will know that our constituents’ voices will not be heard in the other place, and that it is us who are elected to bring those voices forward. On 17 October, the Foreign Secretary at the time invited all Members of this House over to the Foreign Office to ask questions. Could the Minister explain why the Foreign Secretary has not made himself available, even in an informal way off the record, so that Members of Parliament from the House of Commons can scrutinise him over his decision making?

[Alex Burghart]

The hon. Lady will have an opportunity to ask that question of the Foreign Secretary’s colleagues when they next come to the House. I cannot answer the particulars because they pertain to the Foreign Office.

In the meantime, there will be opportunities to ask questions of the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell). Although it is true that he is not the Foreign Secretary, he is in the Cabinet and is bound by collective agreement. He sits in discussions at the highest level on all matters relating to foreign affairs, and he has answered questions in this House on 14 November, 21 November, 27 November, 7 December, 11 December, 12 December, 19 December, 8 January, 10 January, 24 January, 26 January, 29 January, 30 January, 21 February, 27 February, 28 February, 12 March and 19 March. Members of this House have had opportunities to ask questions of him—a man who sits in Cabinet and who knows the Foreign Secretary’s mind. I am sure he will be very grateful to hear the comments of the hon. Member for Glasgow North about his workload, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend is a very capable individual, as the hon. Member for Rochdale (George Galloway) said, and workload is not a problem from which he suffers.

While we await the Government’s response to the report, it is possible for Members to write to the Foreign Secretary. I know that the hon. Member for Glasgow North has written to him once and, having done so, I assume that he asked all the questions he would like to ask. If he has not, he is welcome to write a second letter.

There is a broader point that I raised with my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) when I was before the Procedure Committee, which is that there is an historical dimension that works with the grain of what the Committee is saying. This issue first arose, as you will probably know from your history lessons, Madam Deputy Speaker, in 1674, when the Commons chose to summon two peers, the Duke of Buckingham and the Earl of Arlington, to answer questions—the Duke of Buckingham because he was considered to be lascivious, wicked and scandalous in his lifestyle, and the Earl of Arlington because he favoured papists. They were admonished by the Commons and sent on their way.

The response of the Lords was to point out that their House, too, had privileges, and that it is not within the power of the Commons to forcibly summon Members of the House of Lords to the Bar of the House. The Lords passed a Standing Order that said that Members of the House of Lords could not be summoned here.

However, it was still clear that Members of the House of Lords could be invited, and there have been a number of instances in which Members of the House of Lords have been invited to this House and have answered questions. In 1779, the Earl of Balcarres and Earl Cornwallis were brought here to answer questions about the Army’s conduct during the American revolution. In 1805, Lord Melville came to this House at his own request, having been impeached—he asked that the House gave him an audience. Lord Teignmouth was questioned twice about Indian affairs in 1806 and 1813. More famously, the Duke of Wellington came to give an account of the peninsula war in 1814. I raise these points because we are all aware that there have been moments in not-so-recent history when commoners have come to the Bar. The last was in 1957, when Mr Junor was summoned over an issue in the press.

My point is that if the Commons wants to, it is capable of inviting a Member of the Lords to come to answer questions here. To a certain extent, history places the solution at the disposal of the hon. Member for Glasgow North: the Commons could invite the Foreign Secretary now to come to the Bar of the House to answer questions. However, I appreciate the hon. Gentleman is looking for something more routine, and for that I am afraid he will have to wait until the Government respond to the report.

In conclusion, it is right that we have this debate; it is important that there is scrutiny of the Government and of the Cabinet, and that is what this Government seek to provide.

Question put and agreed to.