Andrew Griffith: Tory MP denies making famine remark in Commons
A senior Conservative MP has denied mocking the Irish famine during a debate in the House of Commons.Shadow Business Secretary Andrew Griffith was accused of making an "offensive" remark about the famine when he addressed the chamber on Wednesday.More than one million people died during the famine in Ireland between 1845 and 1852 after the potato crop failed.Responding to a question in the Commons, the shadow secretary said he was not sure if a person could "subsist entirely on a seed potato", before adding: "It may have been tried historically and not with enormous success".
'No reference to Ireland'
Labour MP Adam Jogee challenged the remark in a point of order in the Commons today which he said appeared to reference the Irish potato famine.But in a statement to BBC News NI, Andrew Griffith said he made "no reference to Ireland whatsoever" and "if you read the debate, you would see that is clearly the case".He added: "At no point was Mr Jogee in the chamber to represent his own constituents or to hear my remarks in context."The shadow secretary was responding to a question from a Liberal Democrat MP about getting Scottish seed potatoes into the European market when he made the remark.
'Offensive and insensitive'
When his reply was quoted in the chamber by Mr Jogee today one MP could be heard saying "shocking".The Labour MP, who chairs the all-party parliamentary group on Ireland, asked the commons deputy Speaker how best to "remedy any offence"."These words appear to be referencing the tragedy of the Irish potato famine, which, if true, is of course offensive and insensitive and would have taken place in the United Kingdom," he said.The deputy speaker said the chair was not responsible for the shadow secretary of state's remarks.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
32 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Is Sir Keir Starmer a Right-wing extremist?
Is Sir Keir Starmer KC – Left-wing human rights lawyer, former director of public prosecutions, and Labour Prime Minister of the United Kingdom – a dangerous Right-wing extremist? Common sense, evidence and reality say emphatically not. Government materials issued as part of Prevent training programmes give a less clear answer. The Prime Minister's warning that uncontrolled migration risks turning Britain into an ' island of strangers ' would appear to risk falling foul of the definitions used in a Prevent course taken by thousands of public sector professionals with a duty to make referrals to the scheme. This defines 'cultural nationalism' as a type of extreme Right-wing terrorist ideology, including the belief that 'Western culture is under threat from mass migration and a lack of integration by certain ethnic and cultural groups'. Sir Keir is no more an extremist than any other writer who has expressed concern over the unprecedented scale and pace of migration and cultural change in recent years. Why, then, has the Government risked labelling him as such? The short answer is that, riddled with political anxieties over the composition of terrorism in Britain – 80 per cent of the Counter Terrorism Police network's live investigations involved Islamism in 2023, compared with 10 per cent for the extreme Right – Prevent has given the appearance of loosening the definition of the latter in order to provide an artificial 'balance' to its work. As the Shawcross Review found in 2023, the programme has adopted a 'double standard' when dealing with Islamists and the extreme Right. The results have been farcical, with an 'expansive' definition of Right-wing extremism capturing 'mildly controversial or provocative forms of mainstream, Right-wing leaning commentary that have no meaningful connection to terrorism or radicalisation' even while Prevent funded organisations whose leaders have publicly made statements 'sympathetic to the Taliban' and referred to militant Islamists as 'so-called 'terrorists' of the legitimate resistance groups'. Such absurdities might be overlooked if Prevent had also proved ruthlessly effective at preventing atrocities. It has not. Prevent has failed to identify dangerous and violent suspects on multiple occasions, including Southport killer Axel Rudakubana, who was referred and dismissed on three occasions before carrying out his attack. A deradicalisation programme that seems to show less interest in deradicalising potential terrorists than in policing Right-wing thought is unfit for purpose. It beggars belief that two years after the Shawcross Review we are once again having the same conversations. Prevent must be reformed – or if incapable of change, dismantled entirely.
Telegraph
32 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Labour spends £35k on pub beer mats to boast about minimum wage rise
Labour spent more than £35,000 of taxpayer cash on beer mats in pubs advertising the increase to the national minimum wage, a minister has admitted. The Government sent out promotional material to pubs across the country to tell workers that the minimum wage and national living wage were going up. Justin Madders, the employment minister, rationalised the £35,580 expense as he said the beer mats offered a 'unique opportunity to engage audiences in a social, high-dwell environment where financial conversations naturally occur'. The red and pale blue beer mats were government-branded and said: 'Millions got a pay rise.' 'National minimum and living wages went up on 1st April', it added, and displayed a barcode for customers to scan for details on how to 'make sure you're getting paid correctly'. The employment minister responded to a written question by Richard Holden, the shadow paymaster general, about the cost of the drink mats. He said: 'The cost to advertise in pubs using beer mats was £35,580, which was approved at official level.' He confirmed that the advertising push was approved by the Cabinet Office, and came out of the 2025 National Minimum Wage and National Living Wage campaign budget of £650,000. He added: 'The 2024 campaign saw an increase in reach to eligible workers. However, recognition remained low, reinforcing the need for bolder, more engaging formats for the 2025 campaign, which expected to deliver an estimated 3.2 million impressions. 'It offered a unique opportunity to engage audiences in a social, high-dwell environment where financial conversations naturally occur. 'This setting encourages discussion and word-of-mouth sharing about rate changes and offers an effective nudge for audiences to 'check their pay'.' 'We will be ruthless' Sir Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves have both pledged a war on waste in Whitehall, with the Government having taken such moves as freezing government credit cards and abolishing NHS England. The Prime Minister said in October: 'We will also be ruthless in clamping down on government waste, just as we will be ruthless on clamping down on tax avoidance ', emphasising the intention to show so the British people that 'every penny counts'. He added: 'Every single person in this country had to do that during the cost-of-living crisis and government must be no different.' The national living wage for those aged 21 and over rose from £11.44 per hour to £12.21 per hour, an increase of 6.7 per cent. The national minimum wage for those between 18 and 20 went up from £8.60 to £10 per hour, a 16.3 per cent boost. The Government has also begun to name and shame firms that do not pay their workers the appropriate wages, demanding they pay back what they owe and in some instances a further financial penalty.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Concern over mass migration is terrorist ideology, says Prevent
Lord Young suggested the definition could even capture Mr Jenrick, the former immigration minister, who has previously warned that 'excessive, uncontrolled migration threatens to cannibalise the compassion of the British public.' Senior Labour politicians could also fall within the scope of the definition, he claimed. Lord Young cited Sir Keir's recent statement that without fair immigration rules, 'we risk becoming an island of strangers, not a nation that walks forward together.' There are growing fears that police are wrongly seeking to limit free speech. The Telegraph disclosed last month that Julian Foulkes, a retired police officer, was arrested and detained over a social media post warning about the threat of anti-Semitism. Officers who conducted a search of his house described a collection of books by authors such as Mr Murray as 'very Brexity'. Mr Foulkes later received an apology and £20,000 compensation. Last year, Allison Pearson, the Telegraph columnist, was questioned at home by two officers over an X post following pro-Palestinian protests. The Telegraph has also covered the case of Hamit Koskun, who was fined this week for burning a Koran. It led Mr Jenrick to accuse the courts of reviving blasphemy law. Lord Young said the course material appeared to reflect a shift in the Prevent approach from focusing on conduct – such as acquiring weapons or inciting violence – to 'treating ideology itself as a risk indicator, encompassing belief, alignment or political attitude'. He said the FSU had already had to support members referred to Prevent, including a 24-year-old autistic man whose social worker reported that he had been viewing 'offensive and anti-trans' websites and 'focusing on lots of Right-wing dark comedy'. Prevent referral could stain person's name Even if a person was subsequently deemed to require 'no further action', their name would risk remaining on police and other databases that could be accessed by MI5, MI6, the Home Office, Border Force, HMRC, the Charity Commission and local safeguarding teams. Lord Young said: 'There are multiple documented cases in which individuals referred to Prevent – despite not meeting the threshold for further action – suffered serious and lasting consequences simply because their names were logged in the system.' The row comes despite a report by Sir William Shawcross, a former independent reviewer of Prevent, which criticised the way that mainstream literature and even a former Cabinet minister had been described as 'cultural nationalists' by a Home Office research unit on extremism. The minister was later revealed as Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg. Sir William recommended that Prevent must be 'consistent in the threshold that it applies across ideologies to ensure a proportionate and effective response.' He added that there were major failings with Prevent more broadly, including that it wrongly funnelled money to extremist organisations and had repeatedly failed to identify people who went on to carry out terrorist attacks. Lord Carlile, a former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said: 'It is a very difficult job that the Home Office has to do, but maybe they should do a careful bit of editing so that people who are close to the political mainstream are not caught up in it.' A former government adviser said the 'cultural nationalism' definition was 'pretty shoddy'. 'Agencies like counter-terrorism police and MI5 are much more rigorous in their classifications,' they said. 'We are talking about Right-wing extremists, who are often neo-Nazis. It undermines the seriousness of what counter-extremism is all about.' Professor Ian Acheson, a former government adviser on extremism, said: 'We are now beginning to see the consequences of a referral mechanism built on training like this which skews away from suspicion by conduct to the mere possession of beliefs that are perfectly legitimate but regarded by Prevent policy wonks as 'problematic.''
