Parliamentary schedule for Thursday June 26
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
2 days ago
- Telegraph
Parliament is tragically becoming a sideshow
With the Commons going into summer recess this coming week, our MPs will be disappearing for a break and won't be seen in Westminster again until the autumn. And yet, as they depart, they will leave behind a question that is more pressing than ever. Will anyone really notice they are gone? The harsh truth is that with super-injunctions, and trivial debates, an institution that should be the great forum for discussing the country's future, is sliding into irrelevance, even at a time when we need it more than ever. The term parliament traces its origins back to the 13th century. It is derived from the French parler meaning to talk or speak, and it came to stand for the ideal of thrashing out issues in free and open debate. If we were to derive a term from the French for the body that sits in Westminster in 2025, bavardage, for light-hearted chatter, might be more appropriate. There is not much talk anymore, at least not of any real substance. The sad truth is that the forum which has been the stage for so many crucial turning points in Britain's national story is now a pale shadow of its former self. We saw that most dramatically illustrated this week with the revelation that ministers had taken out super-injunctions to prevent this newspaper and others from reporting on the resettlement of thousands of Afghan veterans in Britain. This paper has already expressed its view that super-injunctions have no place in a country which used to pride itself for upholding free speech. But there is an even more central issue. If matters which are so crucial to our national security and immigration policy cannot be debated in the Commons and Lords, how does this not undermine the very principle of parliamentary sovereignty? Even with its huge majority, and its claims to have embarked on a project of national renewal, the Starmer administration has put forward very little primary legislation compared with other incoming governments. Instead, Parliamentary time is filled up with 'general debates' where MPs get to sound off on whatever happens to be worrying them that week. When Parliament does legislate, it is too often on trivial issues such as extending the vote to 16-year-olds. In effect Parliament is being turned into a glorified radio phone-in, except with fewer listeners and much less fun. Meanwhile the quangos, independent agencies and human rights lawyers that dominate policy making operate free of any meaningful scrutiny. Civil servants should be nervous of shallow policies being forensically torn apart in passionate debates, and ministers should be mindful that if they cannot command the support of the House they will soon be gone. But that is sadly no longer the case. It is not as if there is any shortage of great issues to debate. A two-decade experiment in low-skilled mass immigration has started to fall apart as it becomes clear it is damaging the economy. Russian aggression and the withdrawal of the US from Europe means that we will have to rethink how we defend ourselves. Taxation has reached a 70-year high and yet nothing in the public sector seems to work or to have enough money. There used to be a straightforward answer to the question, who governs Britain? Today – with devolution, the administrative state and judicial activism – this is far from clear. These are all weighty, difficult issues that will be hard to fix. A Parliament operating at its best would thrash out the choices that have to be made; scrutinise all the different policy options, exposing any weaknesses before they can do any damage; and perhaps most of all mobilise the necessary public consent for reforms that will be challenging and may take years to work. Instead Parliament is sidelined into irrelevance, only making itself occasionally heard as a block on any cuts to welfare entitlements, but otherwise contributing almost nothing to the national debate. It is a travesty, and one that both ministers and backbenchers should be ashamed of. There are many, many steps that will have to be taken to fix a Britain that to many of its citizens seems dangerously broken. We will need to learn to live within our means. We will have to control our borders, stop welfare bills soaring out of control, and reduce the crushing burden of taxation. But perhaps the most important is this. We will need to restore the Westminster Parliament to its former pre-eminence. Without a great national chamber to talk and debate the issues that confront us, the country will remain stuck in accelerating decline.
Spectator
2 days ago
- Spectator
Commons blow Lords away in shooting cup
The big guns of parliament were out in force this morning. The annual cross-party Commons v Lords shooting match has long been a fixture in the annual political calendar. After last year's contest was dominated by the shadow of the general election, this year was a much more relaxed affair. Peers and MPs descended on Ruislip to see which of the two Houses came out on top. And in the true spirit of the Parliament Act, it was the elected Commons who (narrowly) triumphed today… The final scores from an enjoyable morning of shooting proved to be 245 for the Commons versus 212 for the Lords. Captain Greg Smith, who stepped into the breach left by Bill Wiggin, received the silver cup, heroically rescued from the Bishops' Bar in the House of Lords. Kit Malthouse meanwhile wrestled the accolade of 'top gun' off the Earl of Effingham. Graham Brady, the captain of the Lords, graciously conceded defeat, assuring his fellow peers that his 'last minute transfer' from the Commons team had not seen him act as a double agent for MPs. As for Mr S, after a lamentable performance, there was only one piece of advice: musket better. The Commons team would be well shot of him next year…
Leader Live
2 days ago
- Leader Live
No 10 defends Healey amid accusations he misled Commons over Afghan data leak
Number 10 said the Defence Secretary's statement to the Commons, in which he said that 'to the best of my knowledge' no serving armed forces personnel were put at risk by the breach, was 'accurate'. Opposition critics have demanded the minister 'correct the record' after it emerged days later that MI6 spies and members of the SAS were among those named in a list emailed out 'in error' in February 2022. Asked whether Mr Healey had misled MPs, a Number 10 spokesman said: 'I believe it was an accurate statement.' He said the Government is 'committed to transparency' and 'in terms of security of our personnel, we take take that extremely seriously, particularly those in sensitive positions.' On Thursday, it emerged that details of more than 100 Britons, including those working for MI6 and in special forces, were included in the spreadsheet sent outside authorised government systems by a defence official. Defence sources have said information relating to personnel was included in the dataset after they had endorsed Afghans who had applied to be brought to the country. An injunction over the breach was sought by then defence secretary Sir Ben Wallace, and a wider-ranging superinjunction, which prohibits disclosure not just of the information but of the order itself, was granted in 2023. The initial breach saw a dataset of 18,714 people who applied for the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap) scheme released. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) only becoming aware of the blunder when excerpts were posted anonymously on a Facebook group in August 2023. The leak also led to the creation of the secret Afghanistan Response Route, which is understood to have cost about £400 million so far, with a projected final cost of about £850 million. The gagging order was granted by the High Court in an attempt to prevent the Taliban finding out about the breach, and lifted on Tuesday. Speaking to the Commons following the revelations on Tuesday, Mr Healey said: 'To the best of my knowledge and belief, no serving member of our armed forces is put at risk by the data loss.' It is understood the names of a small number of personnel were included in the list, but no contact details or addresses. Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey said: 'Three days ago John Healey claimed no-one serving in the armed forces was put at risk by the data breach. Today we found out that appears to be false. 'We need to know if any serving members of the armed forces were impacted – and the Defence Secretary must urgently come before Parliament to answer the question of whether he knowingly misled MPs and the public.' Lib Dem MP Ian Roome said: 'It is really important to restore public trust that he now clarifies his remarks. It is the least that our brave armed forces personnel along with the thousands of Afghans impacted deserve.' The Lib Dems said Mr Healey should 'urgently come to Parliament and correct the record.' Meanwhile, Tory ex-ministers have sought to distance themselves from the handling of the breach after Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer said members of the previous government had 'serious questions to answer' over the episode. Former immigration minister Robert Jenrick said he and former home secretary Suella Braverman had 'strongly opposed' plans for the Afghan Response Route in 'internal meetings'. Ex-defence secretary Sir Grant Shapps said he had kept the superinjunction in place in order to 'save lives' and err 'on the side of extreme caution'. But speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today programme on Friday, the ex-MP for Welwyn Hatfield said: 'I would do the same thing all over again. I would walk over hot coals to save those lives.' Asked whether he supported calls from the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) for the publication of an intelligence assessment which formed the basis of the superinjunction, he said: 'Yes, I would.' He added he knew the committee 'won't like' the fact the incident had been kept secret but 'it was just so sensitive that if anything had got out at all, it would put those lives at risk'. Despite having kept the order in place during his tenure as defence secretary, which lasted just under a year, Sir Grant said he was 'surprised' it had remained for 'so long'. He added: 'I don't think it should have carried on as long as it had. I'm surprised that it has. Those questions are for others. 'But I came in, the problem was there, I dealt with it, and as a result I think that we saved lives.' Meanwhile, the chairman of the ISC said the previous government had ignored the usual process whereby the committee is able to see sensitive information to ensure there is scrutiny. Lord Beamish told BBC Radio Scotland: 'I think there are serious constitutional issues here.' A total of about 6,900 people are expected to be relocated by the end of the relocation scheme. The official responsible for the email error was moved to a new role but not sacked. The superinjunction was in place for almost two years, covering Labour and Conservative governments, before it was lifted on Tuesday. Tory leader Kemi Badenoch has apologised on behalf of the Conservatives for the leak, telling LBC: 'On behalf of the government and on behalf of the British people, yes, because somebody made a terrible mistake and names were put out there … and we are sorry for that.' Former armed forces minister James Heappey, himself an ex-Army officer who served in Afghanistan, said ministerial colleagues offered no 'fierce opposition' to the relocation scheme. Mr Heappey also said claims he had backed a 'new entitlement' for people affected by the breach but not eligible for other schemes were 'untrue'. Ms Braverman has said there is 'much more that needs to be said about the conduct of the MoD, both ministers and officials'. Former veterans minister Johnny Mercer claimed he had 'receipts' regarding the previous government's actions in relation to Kabul, and has described the handling of the breach as 'farcical'. Sir Ben has said he makes 'no apology' for applying for the initial injunction because the decision was motivated by the need to protect people in Afghanistan whose safety was at risk. A Ministry of Defence spokesman said: 'It's longstanding policy of successive governments to not comment on special forces. 'We take the security of our personnel very seriously and personnel, particularly those in sensitive positions, always have appropriate measures in place to protect their security.'
