Speaker urges Government to apologise for not taking Ministerial Code seriously
For the second time this month, Sir Lindsay Hoyle berated ministers in the chamber for making policy announcements to the media, instead of to Parliament.
In a heated statement, Sir Lindsay criticised ministers for having to be dragged to the Commons, and said MPs should not be taken for granted.
It comes after Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood conducted a press conference on changes to prison recall measures, just an hour after MPs raised concerns in the Commons about the Government's repeated media briefings.
Trade minister Douglas Alexander also received a telling-off from the Speaker last week, after he suggested a statement on the UK-US trade deal should be delayed, despite one being scheduled.
Speaking in the Commons on Thursday, Sir Lindsay said MPs should be able to question ministers 'in person' on the 'most important announcements' of Government policy.
He said: 'Once again I've had to grant an urgent question on a matter which was briefed extensively to the media in recent days, I recognise the written ministerial statement was issued but I'm surprised that the Government did not think that members will want an opportunity to question ministers on a very important issue.
'On Monday, the Home Secretary was unapologetic about the fact that details of the immigration White Paper were given to the media, which started Sunday morning, before it was laid before this House, and long before she came to make her statement.
'I note that those who now occupy senior ministerial roles were not slow to complain when the previous government made major policy announcements outside this place.
'I will continue to uphold and defend the rights of this House, the right of backbenchers to be here and hear it first.'
He added: 'That was my position on the previous government and it has not changed under this Government. It is clear to me that the general principle set out in paragraph 9.1 of the Ministerial Code is being disregarded more often than it is observed.
'I will be writing to the chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee to invite that committee to consider the issues in more detail.
'Because if the Government is not going to take the ministerial policies seriously, who will?
'I've got to say, I don't like doing this. I believe I am here to represent all backbenchers, and backbenchers have the right to question ministers first. I'm not interested in Sky News or the BBC or political programmes. I'm here to defend all of you, I will continue to defend you.
'Please, do not take MPs for granted, it is not acceptable. I know it's not the minister's fault, but the message has got to go back loud and clear.
'And when you're in the wrong, try apologising to the members we represent.'
Justice minister Sir Nicholas Dakin was in the chamber to respond to an urgent question on the changes to prison recall measures, which had been tabled by shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick.
Sir Nicholas said: 'I hear very clearly your words, and I very much respect the role of Parliament and I'm pleased to be here today to follow up the written ministerial statement that was laid yesterday by the Lord Chancellor.'
Intervening, Sir Lindsay said: 'You wouldn't be here if I hadn't have granted the urgent question. That's the thing we should remember, you wouldn't be here at all.
'It's only because I have decided you should be here, so please let's not try and take advantage of a situation that's your own making.'
Sir Nicholas then said: 'Certainly apologise Mr Speaker, I wasn't trying to take advantage. And clearly it did mean the action of (Mr Jenrick) opposite as well to lay an urgent question, and that's how Parliament works, and rightly so.'
Sir Lindsay said: 'No, it's not the way we should be acting. The way we should be acting is that the statement should have been brought here on the day that it was announced.
'Let's get this very, very clear, this is not about having to grant an urgent question, this is about the Government doing the right thing, rather than somebody else having to drag the ministers here.'
Sir Nicholas said: 'I'm sorry for any misinformation that I've given in trying to begin this urgent question.'
Sir Lindsay could be heard saying 'you're a nice person', before Sir Nicholas went on to say: 'Thank you Mr Speaker, we respect each other and I respect very much that you are standing up for Parliament which is exactly the right thing to do and I applaud.'
On Wednesday, SNP MP Kirsty Blackman argued 'there is little point in having a Ministerial Code' if it continues to be ignored by the Government.
Responding to the MP for Aberdeen North's urgent question, Commons Leader Lucy Powell said: 'There are judgments to be made and there is a balance to be struck at times, and I do do this with the best interests of the House in mind.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
9 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Reeves eyes raid on tax-free pension lump sum
Rachel Reeves is to consider cutting the tax-free pension lump sum in a move that would be expected to raise more than £2bn a year. The Telegraph understands the idea is to feature on an extensive list of money-raising proposals that civil servants will present to the Chancellor ahead of the Budget, as she battles a hole in the public finances of up to £50bn. Industry insiders said there was widespread speculation she will cut the maximum amount people can withdraw from their pension without paying tax. At present, pensioners are allowed to withdraw as much as 25 per cent of their pot tax-free upon retirement, up to a cap of £268,000. Reducing this cap would allow the Treasury to raise billions of pounds a year. The Treasury did not deny that a change would be considered, though one Whitehall official cautioned that the Chancellor was not prioritising pension reforms and said they thought it 'unlikely'. Experts claimed that Ms Reeves may have no choice but to act given the scale of the challenge facing the public finances. The Chancellor is also thought to be considering a raid on the sale of high-value homes, as well as a further crackdown on inheritance tax, in a scramble to balance the books. John Havard, a consultant at tax firm Blick Rothenberg, said: 'Rachel Reeves has taken all her easy choices for increasing tax revenue off the table by sticking with her manifesto promises. But one option that remains open to her is targeting pension tax reliefs.' Torsten Bell, the pensions minister, has previously advocated cutting the tax-free lump sum limit from its current level to just £40,000. Mr Bell stoked speculation of a raid in an interview last month, when he suggested that there were no plans for pension savings to be 'taxed twice' – a form of words that experts said left the door open for a raid on lump sums because they are not currently taxed at all. Pension industry figures fear Ms Reeves could launch a raid on wealthier retirees as she struggles to find enough cash to meet her fiscal rules. Ahead of last year's Budget, Treasury officials asked a top pension provider to assess the impact of reducing the limit by almost two-thirds to £100,000. Ms Reeves opted against the move, which would hit public servants with gold-plated pensions, and hiked other taxes like national insurance instead. But experts said the Chancellor may now be forced to revisit it as weak economic growth and high borrowing have left her with a huge fiscal shortfall. She has ruled out breaking Labour's manifesto promise not to raise income tax, VAT or employee national insurance, leaving a crackdown on pension reliefs as one of the few areas open to her which could yield significant cash. Ms Reeves, who is under pressure from backbenchers to introduce wealth taxes, is also reportedly considering a cap on the amount of money that can be gifted to family members to avoid inheritance tax. Any such move would follow an inheritance crackdown on farmers that has already triggered widespread protests. Another proposal on the table is the introduction of a so-called mansion tax, charging capital gains on the sale of family homes worth over £1.5m. However, experts cautioned that these plans, which would land higher-rate taxpayers with a bill equal to 24 per cent of any gain made on the rise in value of their property, would risk backfiring and could raise little or even no money. Andrew Wishart, an economist at Berenberg Bank, said: 'It is going to incentivise people to not sell, to try and hold to the next election, to see if it changes. Therefore, it might not generate any additional revenues at all.' If she were to go ahead with a raid on the pensions, the Chancellor could also make a Left-wing argument for slashing the tax-free allowance. The Chancellor would likely cite figures showing even a significant cut to the maximum lump sum would only impact the richest quarter of pensioners. Mr Havard said: 'The Government's argument will likely be that, as a disproportionate percentage of relief goes to fund the retirements of the 'better off', it is not fair for 'ordinary working people' to be subsidising the retirement of the 'wealthy'. 'With fiscal pressures mounting and political promises limiting traditional tax levers, pensions represent one of the few big-ticket items the Chancellor can realistically target. But the trade-offs are delicate.' Gary Smith, a retirement specialist at Evelyn Partners, said the wealth management firm had seen a 'rush of enquiries' from people worried the limit will be cut. He said: 'We can expect a re-run of last summer's uncertainty, unless the Treasury rules out such moves. 'That it hasn't, again – despite calls from stakeholders in the financial services sector to do so – can only leave people to suspect that pensions are on the table for the Budget.' Last year both the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) and the Labour-leaning Fabian Society think tanks proposed cutting the limit to £100,000. The IFS said that doing so would save around £2bn a year in the long run as wealthy pensioners were forced to pay tax on more of their savings. Mr Bell, who is now the pensions minister, backed an even more radical cut to the lump sum when he was head of the Resolution Foundation think tank. In an article in 2019 he said that the current tax free allowance was 'very generous, very regressive, and a strange incentive not to stagger your retirement income'. 'Capping the tax-free lump sum at £40,000 would raise £2bn a year while leaving three quarters of future pensioners unaffected,' he said at the time. Helen Whately, the shadow pensions secretary, said: 'After a year of punishing pensioners, it should come as no surprise Labour have them in the crosshairs once again. 'People who have worked hard, done the right thing and saved all their lives should not have the rug pulled out from them by this incompetent Chancellor. 'We know tax rises are inevitable in the autumn. If they care at all about our nation's savings they should not go ahead with this one.' Sir Steve Webb, a former pensions minister who is now a partner at pension firm LLP, said he thought ministers were unlikely to end up cutting the allowance. He said that the need for transitional measures for pensioners and people close to retirement meant that the move would not raise much money before the next election. A Treasury spokesman said: 'We are committed to helping our pensioners live their lives with dignity and respect, which is why in April the basic and new state pension increased by 4.1 per cent. 'Pensioners will receive a boost of up to £470 to their income in 2025-26. Our commitment to the triple lock means millions will see their pension rise by up to £1,900 this parliament.'
Telegraph
9 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Phillipson: Failure of white working-class children holding back Britain
A failure to ensure that white working-class children succeed is holding back Britain, the Education Secretary has said. Ahead of GCSE results day on Thursday, Bridget Phillipson warned that four-fifths of children from white working-class backgrounds were falling short in the English and maths skills required to get on in life. She said the demographic had been 'let down' and said the UK's productivity was suffering as a result. Writing for The Telegraph (read the article below), Ms Phillipson said: 'There is one statistic that stands above the rest. In 2024, only 19 per cent of white British, working-class children achieved a strong pass in maths and English GCSE. 'This data goes back to 2017. Alarmingly, it looks almost identical today to how it did then. It's appalling, and I won't stand by and watch those numbers continue to grow. It's not just the life chances of those children that are being damaged – it's also the health of our society as a whole. Swathes of human capability and productivity lost.' Last week, the Education Secretary said she was concerned that white working-class children were being 'written off' by society. Her latest comments go further, suggesting that the impact of failure among the demographic is hurting the economy. Britain's sluggish economic growth over the past few years has been blamed on low productivity levels, which have been languishing since the 2008 financial crisis. Productivity – the amount of output for each hour of work done – doubled in the 35 years before the global recession, but has risen just five per cent since then, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Officials are concerned that failure to provide young people with the skills they need to succeed will only exacerbate the problem, meaning fewer people entering the world of work and more on benefits. Ms Phillipson's remarks also show the Government is increasingly concerned that the UK is failing families in traditional Labour heartlands, as the party struggles to keep pace with growing support for Nigel Farage's Reform UK. This year's GCSE results are expected to show a similar pattern to last year, when more than a fifth – or 21.8 per cent – of all entries were awarded the top grades. But Ms Phillipson warned that while Thursday would mark a day of celebration for many, the headline figures would cloak high levels of underachievement among some of the poorest pupils. Most jobs require applicants to prove they achieved at least a 'standard pass' of grade four – equivalent to a low grade C under the former marking system – in their English and maths GCSEs. However, some require a 'strong pass' of grade five, which sits between the old grades C and B, in the two compulsory subjects. Those who fail to achieve a grade four in their English and maths GCSEs are also required to resit the subjects if they stay on at school until they pass them. Experts have warned that the low pass rate for resits means many pupils are condemned to a demoralising doom loop of exam failures – while others are put off from sixth form altogether. 'Good isn't good enough' Ms Phillipson said: 'Young people from the best schools will be collecting their results this week not only with a world of opportunity ahead, but with experiences that will last a lifetime behind. A rich school experience built on strong academic foundations, with sport, music, the arts not a 'nice to have', but woven into the fabric of their education. 'But while this country is a good place to go to school, good isn't good enough. The images on television and the headline statistics we'll see this week mask the reality of a system that works for some children – even most children – but continues to let down tens of thousands more.' The Education Secretary said efforts to tackle the problem would focus on 'turning around the crisis in school attendance ', since poor performance among white working-class pupils is thought to be closely linked to high absence levels. More than 147,600 pupils were classed as severely absent in the autumn term of 2024, meaning they missed at least half their classes. That was an increase on the year before and the highest rate for an autumn term since comparable data began in 2016-17. Earlier this month, the The Centre for Social Justice think tank warned that, without urgent action, absences would drive up the number of young people missing out on future education, employment or training by nearly 180,000. This would result in an estimated lifetime cost to the taxpayer of £14bn in lost earnings and from young people going on benefits, it added. The Government is preparing a series of interventions to get to grips with soaring underachievement levels in a white paper to be unveiled in the autumn. Plans include publishing more data on how white pupils are performing, as well as harnessing artificial intelligence to identify schools that are falling short. Ms Phillipson said: 'There is more to do. And it's why our schools white paper later this year will present an ambitious vision for a child's school experience, for how we push up outcomes for all young people, for how we stretch the most able to turn a B into an A, and for how we transform the prospects of young people from deprived backgrounds. 'As someone who grew up as one of those children, and as both a local MP and Secretary of State representing those children, I am absolutely determined to make sure they do better. ' Our job is to change the odds By Bridget Phillipson Exam results days are an annual celebration of education, the power of teaching, learning, hard work, knowledge and skills – from young people and their teachers alike – culminating in opportunities that last a lifetime. These days symbolise so much of what is good about going to school in this country. And young people from the best schools will be collecting their results this week not only with a world of opportunity ahead, but with experiences that will last a lifetime behind. A rich school experience built on strong academic foundations, with sport, music, the arts not a 'nice to have', but woven into the fabric of their education. But while this country is a good place to go to school, good isn't good enough. The images on television and the headline statistics we'll see this week mask the reality of a system that works for some children – even most children – but continues to let down tens of thousands more. The record numbers of young people from disadvantaged backgrounds going to university are defying the odds. Our job now is to change those odds. And there is one statistic that stands above the rest. In 2024, only 19 per cent of white British, working-class children achieved a strong pass in maths and English GCSE. Fewer than one in five of all white British children on free school meals are leaving school with the maths and English skills to succeed in work and life. This data goes back to 2017. Alarmingly, it looks almost identical today to how it did then. It's appalling, and I won't stand by and watch those numbers continue to grow. It's not just the life chances of those children that are being damaged – it's also the health of our society as a whole. Swathes of human capability and productivity lost. 'Determined to make sure they do better' As someone who grew up as one of those children, and as both a local MP and Secretary of State representing those children, I am absolutely determined to make sure they do better. Better is not going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. These are issues that run not only through our schools and classrooms, but into our communities. And they take root at the very earliest stages of a child's life and education. It's why I've made the early years my number one priority as Education Secretary, because the single best way for us to close the gaps that emerge by the time young people leave school, is to stop them opening up at all. It's why we are revitalising family services by opening a Best Start Family Hub in every local authority, because better support for parents can only help when it comes to better support for children. And it's why the progress we're making on turning around the crisis in school attendance is so vital – because young people cannot be on the path to success if they're not in the classroom to begin with. But there is more to do. And it's why our schools white paper later this year will present an ambitious vision for a child's school experience, for how we push up outcomes for all young people, for how we stretch the most able to turn a B into an A, and for how we transform the prospects of young people from deprived backgrounds.
Times
30 minutes ago
- Times
Home truths as Rachel Reeves considers her next move
Given their inherent unpopularity, unforecast property taxes tend to fall, to use the terminology of Yes Minister, toward the 'courageous' (vote-losing) end of the ministerial tool box. Yet, presiding over a weakening economy, and politically incapable of passing spending cuts that would help to close Labour's £50 billion fiscal black hole, Rachel Reeves is considering such measures ahead of her October budget. Meanwhile the cost of government borrowing is soaring, with the UK's 30-year gilt yield rising above the US for the first time in decades. The prospect of a fiscal crisis is rising. The chancellor is therefore turning to stale, failed ideas out of desperation to balance the public finances. According to one possible reform, owners of high-value properties would lose their exemption from capital gains tax when selling their primary residence. The measure could see high and additional rate taxpayers face new capital gains levies at a rate of 24 per cent at the point of sale; this would drop to 18 per cent for those paying tax at the basic rate. A separate reform, also being contemplated, would see all properties worth more than £500,000 subject to an annual levy. Whatever fresh political dressing Ms Reeves may give to the latter proposals, they are in spirit the very same 'mansion tax' initiatives abortively championed by Ed Miliband under his disastrous tenure as Labour leader. Ten years on, their flaws remain unchanged. Though these tax hikes would likely be branded as a justified raid on Britain's asset-rich, the fact remains that the UK's property taxes are not lenient by international standards: they are twice as high as the OECD average. Worse is that capital gains taxes distort economic behaviour, by producing a financial disincentive to sell. Such measures would discourage pensioners in large homes from downsizing and introduce further prohibitive barriers to those wishing to move for work or to start a family. It is the last change the UK's dysfunctional housing market needs. Levies tethered to property value, too, would hit just the very 'working people' Labour claims to want to protect from further taxes: the millions of middle-income earners and pensioners, the value of whose homes have been buoyed by asset bubbles, concentrated in the southeast, beyond their control. When it comes to reforming property tax there is a strong case for abolishing stamp duty, which similarly distorts market behaviour by depressing the volume of house sales and discouraging mobility. Unfortunately, such an obviously productive measure does not suit Ms Reeves's short-term agenda of plugging the hole in her government's finances. Though it would be a colossal political undertaking, there is a principled case for overhauling Britain's council tax system, whose eight bands have not been re-evaluated since 1991. Under the present, arguably regressive, system, a modest home in Blackpool may contribute as much to Treasury coffers as a pile in Kensington. What such fine-grained policy comparison ignores is that instead of inefficiently squeezing home-owners, and those attempting against the odds to get a foothold on the property ladder, Labour should have the political courage to show fiscal rectitude on spending. It could start with tackling the near £100 billion projected to be spent on health-related benefits by the end of the decade. The property-owning public should not be made to foot the bill for Labour's deficit in courage.
