MPs – The NEN – North Edinburgh News

Westminster: Election of select committee Chairs

The Speaker of the House, Sir Lindsay Hoyle MP, has set out the timetable for the election of chairs of select committees following the General Election on 4 July 2024.

Since 2010, most committee chairs have been elected by the whole House by secret ballot using the alternative vote system, under which MPs rank candidates in order of preference. 

The period of nominations will run until 4pm on Monday 9 September, with the ballot scheduled for Wednesday 11 September.

How do Chair elections work?

The Speaker’s announcement follows the allocation of particular committee chairs to political parties, agreed by the House on 30 July. The number of chairs allotted to each party relates to their strength in the House of Commons. The chairs of the Committee of Public Accounts and the Committee on Standards are required to be from the Official Opposition.

The rules for the election of chairs of select committees are set out in Standing Order No. 122B. The Chair of the Backbench Business Committee will also be elected at this time although this takes place under a different Standing Order, No. 122D.  The chair of the Backbench Business Committee must be elected from a party which is not represented in the Government.

Which committees are electing a Chair?

Select committees appointed under Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) and their allocation: 

Business and Trade (Labour)
Culture, Media and Sport (Conservative)
Defence (Labour)
Education (Labour)
Energy Security and Net Zero (Labour)
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Liberal Democrat)
Foreign Affairs (Labour)
Health and Social Care (Liberal Democrat)
Home Affairs (Conservative)
Housing, Communities and Local Government (Labour)
International Development (Labour)
Justice (Labour)
Northern Ireland Affairs (Labour)
Science, Innovation and Technology (Labour)
Scottish Affairs (Labour)
Transport (Labour)
Treasury (Labour)
Welsh Affairs (Labour)
Women and Equalities (Labour)
Work and Pensions (Labour)

Other specified select committees:

Environmental Audit (Labour)
Petitions (Liberal Democrat)
Procedure (Labour)
Public Accounts (Conservative)
Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs (Conservative)
Standards (Conservative)

Further information

Does the Civil Service need reforming? MPs launch new inquiry

The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee has launched a new inquiry into the relationship between ministers and officials and whether Government’s engine room still functions as intended.

Several high-profile dismissals of senior civil servants by ministers as well as criticisms of Civil Service impartiality and competence during the Brexit process and Covid-19 pandemic indicate a fundamental tension in relations between the Government and the Civil Service.

MPs are seeking evidence on whether civil servants feel confident in giving honest advice to ministers, the role of ministers and Civil Service leadership in creating an environment where officials can “speak truth to power” and if not, the consequences this has on good policymaking.

In a recent evidence session, Cabinet Secretary Simon Case highlighted how officials face a challenge managing the “juxtaposition” in the Civil Service Code between the “duty to support the Government of the day to the best of your ability and upholding the values” of an independent and impartial Civil Service.

MPs will examine whether the role of Cabinet Secretary is sufficiently empowered to effectively lead the Civil Service, where accountability lies in policymaking, and whether Ministers’ role in the hiring, firing, and promotion of Civil Service leaders is appropriate and conducive to effective government.

William Wragg MP, Chair of PACAC, said: “It is a fundamental principle that the Civil Service serves the government of the day, yet growing tensions between ministers and their officials and public criticisms of Civil Service impartiality and competence have called into question the efficacy of the Westminster model.

“Events such as the Covid-19 pandemic response and Brexit, as well as high-profile dismissals of Civil Service leaders, have raised questions about where accountability lies in Government, but also the integrity of our public administration machine.

“Our inquiry aims to understand how the Civil Service leadership operates today, how the Government’s interaction with officials may have deviated from established practice, and, ultimately, whether our public administration still serves its intended purpose or whether it is in need of reform.”

Terms of reference

The Committee welcomes submissions by 5pm on Friday 16 June addressing any or all of the following questions on:

The status and constitutional position of the Civil Service, including:

The extent to which the established values of the Civil Service, enshrined in the Civil Service Code, continue to determine the conduct of Officials and are respected by the governments they serve.
Whether the Civil Service feels sufficiently confident or empowered to give honest advice to Ministers and ‘speak truth to power’, and if not, what the consequences are for policy making and governance. To what extent does the Civil Service leadership have responsibility for ensuring that an environment exists where officials do feel empowered to give candid advice?
What responsibility does the Civil Service have for ensuring constitutional propriety in the conduct of government?

Civil Service Leadership

What constitutes good leadership in the Civil Service?
As the Head of the Civil Service, is the Cabinet Secretary sufficiently empowered to lead the Civil Service and how far is the Civil Service Board equipped to provide effective leadership?
The extent to which the Civil Service has an obligation to enhance its capability and, if so, whether that can be exercised unless such an obligation also applies to governments. Should any such stewardship obligation be formalised?
Whether Ministers’ current role in the hiring, firing, and promotion of Civil Service leaders is appropriate and conducive to effective government.

Policymaking

Is the respective accountability of Ministers and Officials for policy formulation and delivery sufficiently clear and, if not, how might it be made more so?
Is the current system of Ministerial Directions effective and sufficient?
In all of these areas, are there lessons from other countries that the UK can useful adopt?

Six of the best?

SECOND ROUND OF VOTING TAKES PLACE TODAY

RISHI Sunak has emerged as the front-runner in the race to become the next Prime Minister. The former Chancellor was the clear winner following the first round of voting by MPs yesterday.

Sunak topped the poll with 88 votes, Trade Minister Penny Mordaunt was a strong second on 67 and Foreign Secretary Liz Truss, who launches her campaign today, third on 50.

New Chancellor Nadhim Zahawi and former health secretary Jeremy Hunt were eliminated from the race, both failing to attract suffiicient support.

First Round Voting was:

Rishi Sunak 88

Penny Mordaunt 67

Liz Truss 50

Kemi Badenoch 40

Tom Tugendhat 37

Suella Braverman 32

Nadhim Zahawi 25*

Jeremy Hunt 18*

Eliminated *

The six remaining hopefuls – Kemi Badenoch, Suella Braverman, Penny Mordaunt, Rishi Sunak, Liz Truss and Tom Tugendhat – face another round of voting today when another candidate will be eliminated.

The field is expected to be narrowed down to two by the end of next week, then over the summer around 160,000 Conservative Party members will have their say on who they want as their next party leader – and our prime minister.

The result will be announced on 5 September.

‘A National Disgrace’: British Airways lambasted in Westminster report

British Airways’ treatment of staff ‘a national disgrace’, say MPs

UK-based airlines and other aviation employers should not proceed hastily with large scale redundancies and restructuring to employees’ terms and conditions until the Job Retention Scheme ends in October 2020 and they have had the opportunity to consider the Government’s plans to help the sector restart and recover, say MPs.

In a report exploring the gravity of the crisis facing the UK’s aviation sector, the Transport Committee says fundamental decisions about people’s livelihoods should not be made prematurely.

Several aviation companies have announced redundancies, despite accessing the Government’s Job Retention Scheme designed to help businesses severely affected by the pandemic to retain employees and protect the economy.

The actions of British Airways and parent company, International Airlines Group, draw particular criticism. The committee’s view is that BA’s current consultation on staffing changes is a calculated attempt to take advantage of the pandemic to cut 12,000 jobs and to downgrade the terms and conditions of approximately 35,000 employees. The consultation is due to end on June 15th.

Chair of the Transport Committee, Huw Merriman MP, said: “The impact of coronavirus may sadly mean that the loss of some jobs in the aviation sector is justified. The behaviour of British Airways and its parent company, IAG, is not.

“It falls well below the standards expected from any employer, especially in light of the scale of taxpayer subsidy, at this time of national crisis. It is unacceptable that a company would seek to drive this level of change under the cover of a pandemic.

“We looked closely at BA’s plans to consult on at least 12000 redundancies and change the terms and conditions of the bulk of its employees. Many submitted written evidence to our inquiry and we thank them.

“As a committee, we have sought to examine this further and drive change using the means open to us through the House, asking Urgent Questions, seeking debates, introducing legislation and putting questions directly to the Prime Minister.

“We will continue to bring pressure where we can, including the airport slot allocation process. This wanton destruction of a loyal work force cannot appear to go without sanction – by Government, parliamentarians or paying passengers who may choose differently in future. We view it is as a national disgrace.”

The introduction of a 14 day blanket quarantine for travellers to the UK from other countries will damage the recovery of the sector and the wider economy, says the report.

Should the conditions allow in late June, the Committee calls for the quarantine policy to be abandoned when it is next reviewed and urges Government to introduce a more flexible and risk-based approach to border control, using alternatives such as targeted quarantines, ‘air bridges’ and temperature screening. In defending its decision, the Government should clearly set out the evidence it used to reach its decision.

Thousands of passengers who booked holidays and flights are still waiting on refunds from airlines and travel operators in accordance with their legal obligations, causing them additional stress and hardship.

The Government should consider whether protections for passengers can be built into the planned Airline Insolvency Bill.

MPs also recommend that the Department for Transport and the Civil Aviation Authority, responsible for enforcing current rules, conduct a speedy review of its powers to ensure it can enforce the rights of passengers in an effective and timely way.

Acknowledging the extraordinary pressures on providers, the Committee asks the Department for Transport to clarify why an extension to the legal deadlines for issuing refunds was not implemented in the UK.

Four months into the crisis, today’s report says the Government’s strategy should be more developed.

The Government’s Aviation Restart, Recovery and Engagement Unit is a welcome first step but the Government should bring forward a strategy for the aviation sector as soon as possible. To stimulate demand and protect businesses, the Committee recommended a temporary six month suspension of Air Passenger Duty payments and 12 month business rates relief for airlines and airports across the UK, as is currently the case in Scotland.

Chair of the Committee, Huw Merriman MP, added: “Few industries have been affected more by the coronavirus pandemic than aviation. Thousands of planes, and thousands of passengers, have been grounded, resulting in a 97% reduction in passenger flights compared to the previous year.

“This vital sector of the UK economy could lose more than £20 billion in revenue. Government must press on with a collaborative strategy for recovery.

“It is imperative that the UK Government finds a way to get aviation back on its feet. We don’t believe this fits with a blanket 14 day quarantine period for travellers to the UK.

“In today’s report, we recommend a more agile response. We also outline our support for a temporary suspension of Air Passenger Duty payments and support with business rates.

“Passenger confidence in airlines and travel operators, dented by unnecessarily difficult refund processes, must be rebuilt. We recommend the Government considers whether new protections for passengers should be introduced ahead of future pandemics or other extraordinary circumstances.”

The Committee’s inquiry is part of a wider look at the impact of coronavirus on UK transport. This first look at aviation did not examine the longer-term implications for air travel and MPs intend to return to this once the immediate crisis has subsided.

Rory Boland, Editor of Which? Travel, said: “The travel industry’s handling of cancellations and refunds has left consumers out of pocket and trust in the sector at a record low – so the committee is right to call for the government to introduce measures to improve protections for travellers.

“Which? has been calling for airlines and holiday firms to comply with the law on customer refunds and for clarity around Refund Credit Notes since the sector was thrown into chaos earlier this year, so action is long overdue.

“The government must urgently set out how it will take these recommendations forward, to restore trust in the industry before it is permanently damaged and ensure customers receive the billions of pounds they are collectively owed in refunds.”

Should our politicians return to Westminster? Speaker responds to MPs

Speaker of the House Sir Lindsay Hoyle has responded to the Centenary Action Group, a cross-party group of MPs who had written to express concerns about plans to return to the traditional ways of working at Westminster.

Dear colleague,

Many thanks for your letter dated 20 May. I am well-aware of the strength of feeling from Members concerned about plans to return to physical proceedings in the House of Commons, but it is always useful to have the issues set out on paper.

Like many, I have been impressed with the way in which the House Authorities were able to facilitate hybrid proceedings in the Chamber, and then remote voting, within such a short space of time. While these proceedings have had their limitations, they have undoubtedly allowed more scrutiny and participation to take place than would have occurred without them.

Since the House has delivered these innovations to ensure that individuals could adhere to Government guidelines in order to keep safe, the Government has now taken the view that the House should return to the Chamber in a fully physical form.

It is a long-established constitutional principle – and one embodied in Standing Orders – that the Government controls the distribution of time available to the House, and that Government business has precedence. It is for the House itself to determine its procedures, as it did when it facilitated the move to allow virtual participation in select committees (which remains in force), and the move towards hybrid proceedings in the Chamber and remote voting (no longer in force).

As Speaker I cannot and should not stand in the way of the will of the House.

However, I would like to say that, in my view, all Members entitled to sit in the House of Commons should be able to have their voices heard in representing their constituents to as great an extent as is possible.

I am personally sympathetic to those who need to stay at home because they are vulnerable, shielding or have caring responsibilities. I have continued to express my view to the Leader of the House that the possibility to participate in the business of the House via hybrid proceedings should remain for these colleagues. I very much hope that the Government and Opposition, through the usual channels, can work together to ensure that this happens.

I believe, that just as I have a duty of care to staff of the House in my role as Chair of the House of Commons Commission, the individual political parties have a duty of care to their MPs to ensure that they are not put at risk and protection is available for those who need it.

As an extension of that, they also have a responsibility to ensure that their constituents are not disenfranchised, especially if there is an alternative method available enabling their MP to participate in business and vote on it.

For those who do come onto the parliamentary estate, I am confident that the appropriate social distancing measures will be in place. The House authorities are working together with Public Health England to ensure the parliamentary estate is a COVID-19 secure workplace by the time we return from the Whitsun recess on 2 June.

As you are probably aware, I have been insistent that we do not allow more than 50 MPs in the Chamber, while PHE guidelines on social distancing remain at two metres. Indeed, I will suspend the sitting if we exceed that number, or it is clear that social distancing is not being maintained.

I have also been very clear that Members’ staff, and House staff, who can work remotely should continue to do so – they should not be returning to the estate, or their constituency offices.

My priority, throughout this pandemic, is that all in the Parliamentary community can work safely if they are on the Estate, and I am grateful to all those working hard on our risk assessments and taking steps to make our workplace as safe as possible.

My pledge to you is that I will continue to be guided by PHE advice and will take whatever action is advised and I will continue to represent the range of views on this matter in my interactions with the Government.

Warm wishes

Sir Lindsay Hoyle

Speaker of the House of Commons