Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address
Debate between Saqib Bhatti and Darren Jones(3 weeks, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Darren Jones
I share the hon. Member’s sentiment on public trust, which is why the Government have initiated the Ethics and Integrity Commission, updated the ministerial code, and are bringing forward legislation on the removal of peerages from disgraced peers in the other place. We are undertaking what is probably the most wide-ranging work on ethics and standards in public life for many decades.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
When Parliament passed the Humble Address, it was very clear that the House did not trust the Government on this issue, which is why we wanted the ISC involved. It is clear that there are redactions happening beyond the will of Parliament. If that is the case, does the Minister accept that he has to come to the House to ask for permission, and if he does not do so, then he needs to tell us why?
Darren Jones
I refer to my opening statement in relation to compliance with the Humble Address and the right for the Government to withhold information subject to public interest duties—for example, the names and contact details of junior officials. All redactions that are in relation to national security and international relations have been submitted to the Intelligence and Security Committee and agreed in line with the Humble Address.
UK Infrastructure: 10-year Strategy
Debate between Saqib Bhatti and Darren Jones(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Darren Jones
I will give a shorter answer, given the time available. We will be setting out further detail shortly about where we will be piloting these place-based business cases. It is a new process for Whitehall. It requires a level of co-ordination that does not currently exist, but the outcome if we get it right will be people experiencing co-ordinated, thoughtful infrastructure spending in the places they live, in a way that makes sense for how they live in those areas. I am sure my hon. Friend will continue to bid for Darlington as we decide where to pilot those place-based business cases in due course.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury mentioned the midlands rail hub. He will know that the previous Government committed to the £1.75 billion project. There has been a pause, and paragraph 5.83 of the spending review states that the Government will fund its progression. In the spirit of short answers, can he tell me exactly how much money has been committed to it?
Darren Jones
The difference from the last Government is that they promised things with no money, and we are promising things with actual money. The hon. Member points to the midlands hub in the spending review document. That is about development funding. One of our different approaches under this infrastructure strategy is that, instead of just allocating the total estimated spend at the start of the project and letting the project get on without proper oversight, we are issuing development funding earlier and more often, so that we can have properly costed business cases with proper assurance. That means we can guarantee members of the public that we will deliver on our promises, unlike his party.