Early evening summary
Some hereditary peers removed from Lords under Labour bill could end up returning as life peers, minister confirms
Conservative peers have criticised the government’s plan to remove the right of the remaining hereditary peers to sit in the House of Lords, following the publication of the bill that will implement this. (See 1.12pm.)
Speaking during a private notice question (the Lords equivalent of a Commons urgent question), Lord Strathclyde, a former leader of the Lords, and a hereditary peer himself, said that what the government was planning was “a high-handed, shoddy, political act” that would remove some of the most experienced peers from the house.
And Lord True, the current Tory leader in the Lords, described the bill as “divisive and partisan legislation”. He said it was best for constitutional reform should go ahead by consensus.
But, generally, Tory criticism was relatively restrained, and Strathclyde and True mostly complained about the bill being published with an announcement being scheduled in the House of Lords. Labour’s Angela Smith, the leader of the Lords, accused them of “faux anger” and pointed out that Labour’s plans were included in its manifesto, and in the king’s speech.
Although the House of Lords has regularly blocked attempts to reform it over the past century, by convention peers do not vote down policies included in a governing party’s manifesto and none of the opposition peers speaking on the topic today argued that the bill should be rejected.
Ironically, one of the peers most critical of the bill was Lord McNally, a Labour No 10 adviser in the 1970s who subsequently defected to the SDP and who was Lib Dem leader of the Lords when the coalition was in power. McNally, who is in favour of an elected Lords, said that when 92 hereditary peers were allowed to stay when Labour passed a bill in 1999 removing all the others, a “solemn promise” was made that they would stay until more extensive Lords reform happened.
McNally said it was wrong to go back on that promise. He told peers:
I’m afraid simply to abandon that deal that was made 25 years ago, without the substantial reform of the Lords, is a sham.
Smith said she did not agree. She said she accepted constitutional reform should be taken “with care and with consideration”, adding “25 years seems a fair amount of care and consideration”.
In response to another question, Smith also confirmed that some of the 92 hereditary peers affected by the government’s bill could end up returning to the Lords as life peers. She told the house:
I can confirm that if members leave this house as hereditary peers, there is no block at all on them coming back as life peers, if their party so wishes to introduce them.
Ed Balls says Starmer and Reeves need to find 'escape route' from winter fuel payments cuts controversy
Ed Balls has said that Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves need an “escape route” to defuse the anger generated by their decision to means-test the winter fuel payment.
The former Labour shadow chancellor said that, while he did not think a straightforward U-turn would be acceptable, ministers needed to find another way to stop the controversy destabilising the government.
Balls said that Reeves needed to be “really quick”, and that she could not afford to wait until the budget, which is on 30 October.
Speaking on his Political Currency podcast, which he co-hosts with George Osborne, the Tory former chancellor, Balls said:
If you’re Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves and their teams, you’ll be looking at the polling, you’ll be looking at the focus groups. They will be saying, ‘This is a big problem, and it’s going to get worse’.
I don’t think you can just plough on. I don’t think you can do a U-turn, but what they need is an escape route.
They need to find a creative way to do what they said they were going to do, close the in-year black hole, and find an alternative way to do it which could either be modifying what they’re doing on the winter allowance or finding some other way to close the black hole … I would be thinking creatively.
Balls also said that, although Reeves was “very skilled”, she may be regretting her decision to announce the winter fuel payments cut in July. He said:
I think she will have been given a list of things and told she has to do one of them, and I think she’s probably, in retrospect, quite annoyed at the Treasury for pushing her into an immediate decision like this. She may have felt, in retrospect, it was bad advice.
And she’ll be acutely aware of the politics, because the reality is this isn’t just a storm in a teacup. This is one of those big cut-through issues which has real momentum. It unites the left and the right.
In January, also speaking on his podcast, Balls said Labour should abandon its commitment to spend £28bn a year on its green jobs plan. About two weeks later that is exactly what Starmer did.
For two decades Balls was a key figure in Labour, first as Gordon Brown’s most powerful adviser, then as a cabinet minister, and finally as Ed Miliband’s shadow chancellor.
Now he works primarily as a presenter, on ITV’s Good Morning Britain, and as a podcaster. His wife, Yvette Cooper, is home secretary.
Labour MP 11th in private members' ballot says he will introduce assisted dying bill if other MPs don't
The Labour MP Jake Richards has said he may try to use a private member’s bill to legislate to allow assisted dying.
Richards came 11th in the private members’ ballot this morning. This means he will be able to bring in a bill, but because he was not in one of the top seven slots he almost certainly won’t be allocated the time that would be needed for a controversial bill like this to have a chance of passing. (See 10.10am.)
It is not yet clear whether any of the MPs who are in the top seven will pick assisted dying as a topic for their bill.
In a post on X, Richards said:
Happy to have made the Private Members’ Bill ballot.
Subject to procedure and those ahead of me, I’ve made it clear that my first preference for a bill would be to reform our archaic assisted dying laws, working with @dignityindying and others.
The time has come.
In 2015 MPs overwhelmingly voted against assisted dying – changing the law to allow doctors to help people who are terminally ill to end their lives. But it is thought there may now be a majority in favour; the public debate has moved on, and the composition of the Commons has changed enormously.
Keir Starmer has indicated that, while he would give his MPs a free vote on this issue, he would personally be in favour of reform, subject to proper safeguards.
The UK hopes to revive “flatlined” trade as part of its ambition to reset relations with the European Union, a minister told MPs this morning.
Douglas Alexander, the trade minister, was responding to a question from Labour’s Helen Hayes during business questions. Hayes asked if the government would take an “evidence-based approach” to the UK’s trade relationship with the EU, pointing out that goods exports to the EU were “still 11% lower than they were in 2019” before the Brexit agreement took effect.
Alexander replied:
While there has been better performance on services than on goods, she’s absolutely right to recognise the fall that we’ve seen in goods trade with the European Union.
Overall trade since 2018 has essentially flatlined and that’s why, as a government, we’re determined to reset our relationship with the European Union more broadly, but within that broader objective of resetting looking specifically at the border to try and achieve less frictionful trade.
Here is another question from a reader, prompted by my post earlier about the tombola system used to choose the winners of the private members’ bill ballot. (See 11.04am.)
@Andrew - there are 650 MPs, approx 100 are members of the govt. So wouldn’t it be fairer to divide 550 into the numbers of PMQs in a Parliamentary year and allocate MPs for each PMQ. The tombola method suggests some MPs may never ask a question, whilst others could ask several questions ... or once they have asked a question are they not included for several weeks?
What an antiquated parliament we have.
Lots of people don’t realise that a tombola-type system is used to decide who gets to ask questions at PMQs – or at least some of the people who will get a question. But it is done electronically, using a process called the shuffle, not the glass jar method used for private members’ bills.
I don’t think your suggestion would work. MPs don’t want to be told they will get to ask a question in January when they might want to ask a question next week because of an urgent matter in their constituency.
As far as I know, MPs who get a question one week don’t get excluded from the shuffle the following week. But this is not the only way questions are chosen. The shuffle decides who gets to be on the order paper, but if there are two Labour questions in a row, the speaker will alternate with an opposition question and may choose someone not on the order paper. And if there is a good constituency reason to call an MP, they will get called. The speaker’s office also keeps track of how often people get called and this is taken into account.
John Swinney accused of 'betrayal' after dropping pledge for free school meals for all primary pupils
John Swinney had an uncomfortable session at first minister’s questions as he was attacked from left and right over ditching his government’s commitment to universal free school meals for primary pupils, the day after making the eradication of child poverty the “foremost priority” of his administration.
Scottish Tory leader Douglas Ross asked why that had now been limited to those P6 and P7s in receipt of the Scottish child payment, while Lorna Slater, co-leader of the Scottish Greens, described it as a “betrayal”, pointing out this was a commitment originally secured by her party at the 2021 budget, due to be rolled out by 2026.
Swinney repeated the “acute financial challenges” facing his government – blaming Tory austerity, inflation and public sector pay claims – and said it was “a difficult decision that the government had to make”.
There’s been a lot of discussion of the SNP’s fondness for universal freebies that largely benefit the middle classes – like free prescriptions or cutting peak rail fares – and how this sits with the current financial crisis. But there’s an extra dimension with free school meals – research consistently finds that means-testing this benefit causes stigma for children in receipt of it.
The fall-out from Swinney’s programme for government continues today; the very first bill to be published from it this morning is in fact a climate bill that would scrap its critical 2030 targets to reduce emissions.
Lewis Ryder-Jones, Oxfam Scotland’s advocacy adviser, said:
Instead of being entirely focused on fairly cutting emissions, the Scottish government is cutting green budgets and moving the climate goalposts because of its own inadequate climate action.
Slater’s attack in the chamber came as the Scotsman published an interview with her in which she raised serious doubts that the Greens would support Swinney’s budget, as she underlined her anger at cuts to climate and active travel commitments too. With the SNP a minority government, this significantly deepens the Scottish government’s financial crisis.
Miliband condemns Tories for letting foreign states own UK energy assets, but not British government, as MPs debate bill
Ed Miliband, the energy secretary, told MPs that Labour’s plan to create a state-owned energy company, Great British Energy, would be good for energy security, jobs and wealth creation.
Speaking at the start of the second reading debate on the Great British Energy bill, he said the new company, which will be devoted to low-carbon energy, would end 14 years of Britain being “exposed to the fossil fuel market”.
And he argued that the last government was happy with state-ownership of energy companies in Britain “but with one crucial overriding condition – that it would be state ownership by any country except Britain”. He went on:
That is the reality of what we inherited. You see, even before this bill, we already have widespread state ownership of our energy assets in Britain – by other countries, Denmark, Sweden, Norway and France, through their own state owned company
Indeed, get this. The city of Munich owns more of our offshore wind capacity than the British government.
And in the auction results, I announced on Tuesday, the largest two offshore wind projects to win a contract will be built by Ørsted, the Danish state-owned company.
I strongly welcome their investment. But the question before this house out today, the question at the heart of this bill, is a simple one. Do we think there should be a British equivalent of state-owned energy generation companies … investing in our infrastructure.
We have a simple proposition. If it’s right for the Danes, the French, the Norwegians, the Swedes to own British energy assets, it’s right for the British people to do so as well.
Miliband ended his speech urging the Conservative party to back the bill. Describing himself as someone with experience of leadership campaigns, he said he had some advice for “the not very famous five still left in the Tory leadership contest”. He went on:
Back an idea that the public supports, back an idea that Conservative voters support, back an idea that Labour voters support, back an idea that Reform voters support, back an idea that Liberal Democrat supporters support.
Ahead of the debate, Miliband posted a message on X saying that he was particularly proud to be introducing the bill.
There are days in politics that you are particularly proud of.
— Ed Miliband (@Ed_Miliband) September 5, 2024
Today is one of those, because we are debating the Great British Energy Bill in Parliament.
This Government won a mandate for the first publicly-owned national energy company in 75 years.
It will be owned by you pic.twitter.com/uhVkOlZcVR
In the debate Claire Coutinho, Miliband’s Tory shadow, declined his invitation to back the bill. Explaining why she was opposed, she quoted the opposition amendment to the bill saying it should be blocked “because Great British Energy will not produce any energy, will not reduce household energy bills by £300, does not compensate for the amount of investment in energy projects that will be deterred by the government’s plans to prematurely shut down the UK’s oil and gas sector, and involves an unjustified use of taxpayers’ money at a time when the government is withdrawing the winter fuel payment from 10 million pensioners as energy bills rise.”
Updated
Ministers introduce plans to remove all hereditary peers from Lords
The Cabinet Office has just published its House of Lords (hereditary peers) bill, that will remove the right of 92 hereditary peers to retain seats in the House of Lords. It is a very short bill, with just five clauses.
Here is Eleni Courea’s story about what it says.
Tories call for inquiry by standards watchdogs into Labour donor getting civil service job, and another getting No 10 pass
Watchdogs will be asked by the Conservatives to investigate Labour appointing a donor to a civil service job and giving another access to Downing Street, PA Media reports. PA says:
Shadow Commons leader Chris Philp told the Commons that he will write to the adviser on ministerial interests and the civil service commissioner to ask them to look into the initial appointment of Ian Corfield as director of investment at the Treasury, and Lord Alli being given a security pass for 10 Downing Street.
It has since emerged that Corfield will work as an unpaid adviser rather than a salaried civil servant.
He had donated £20,000 to Labour politicians in the last decade, including £5,000 to chancellor Rachel Reeves in 2023.
Keir Starmer has said Lord Alli, who has also donated to the party, was “doing some transition work with us” and he no longer has a pass given the work has finished.
In the Commons today Philp said: “The independent civil service commissioner, a former Labour MP [Gisela Stuart], has had to initiate an inquiry into improper appointments by this government. A ‘government of service’, it turns out, they mean just service to their cronies and their donors. It is just wrong to stuff party donors and cronies into what are supposed to be impartial civil service positions.”
Commons leader Lucy Powell said: “We will take no lessons from the party opposite on cleaning up politics. The party opposite, who partied in Downing Street while the rest of the country was locked down. He knows that we all strive to get the best talent into Government, and that is why there is a policy of exemptions appointments.”
Michel Barnier, former EU Brexit negotiator, named as new French PM
The Conservative MPs and peers who at various times held the post of Brexit minister are all out of office now, and most of them don’t have a major role in British politics anymore. But Michel Barnier, who as the European Commission’s chief Brexit negotiator was their main EU counterpart, has just seen his career enjoy a remarkable revival. He has been named as the new French prime minster.
Lili Bayer has more on our Europe live blog.
This means there will be one more familiar face for Keir Starmer on the European diplomatic circuit. As Labour’s Brexit spokesperson during the EU withdrawal process, he had regular meetings with Barnier. Barnier rated Starmer highly and, after one meeting, he wrote in his diary that he viewed him as a potential future PM.
Downing Street said the head of the new Border Security Command would be named within weeks. Speaking at the morning lobby briefing, the PM’s spokesperson said:
One of the first things that the Government did was to launch the recruitment campaign for the for the border security commander.
We obviously want to have the most skilled person possible in the role.
The process been thorough, and we expect to provide an update on that in the coming weeks.
In the meantime, we’ve already put an extra 100 officers into the National Crime Agency to work with partners across Europe, on top of the 50% uplift in NCA officers stationed at Europol.
Reed promises review of how water industry operates - but rules out nationalisation
Steve Reed, the environment secretary, has ruled out nationalisation of the water companies to fix the sewage scandal.
Speaking to journalists in Putney, after delivering a speech on water reguation (see 11.48am), Reed said that this option is not on the table for a so-called radical review and restructuring of the water system which he announced. He said:
Nationalisation would cost billions of pounds and take years to unpick the current ownership model leaving sewage pollution in the meantime to get worse and halt the much needed investment. I am more interested in a model that works.
Reed said today’s legislation to jail water bosses who cover up pollution and ban bonuses for CEOs of failing companies is just the start and there is going to be a radical review of the water sector to make it financially sustainable and end sewage spills for good. The review will involve extensive consultation, he said.
We will ensure the framework that underpins our water system achieves long term stability, and we will invite views from a range of experts from environmental to public health, consumers, economists and campaigners.
Further details for this review will be laid out in the autumn.
Updated
Is government's crackdown on polluting water bosses really tough enough?
Steve Reed, the environment secretary, has given a speech this morning on his plans to tighten the laws on water regulation. The press release from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is here, and here is Helena Horton’s preview story from last night.
In the light of the report, a reader asks:
Andrew the announcement re water bosses from Steve Reed looks pretty strong to me, but Feargal Sharkey, who even campaigned for Labour, says it’s a missed opportunity . What am I missing?
Helena Horton is better placed to respond than me, and so I asked her. She sent me this.
Feargal thinks this because he has been calling for Ofwat and the Environment Agency to be reformed and Labour is not doing this. They do not use their current powers and have incentivised water companies not to invest, while turning a blind eye to large dividend payments to shareholders. Asking Ofwat and the EA to use their existing powers doesn’t require new legislation, nor does doing things like taking away the Tory-introduced growth order which asks Ofwat to prioritise growth over the environment.
He thinks that the government should be more serious about putting failing water companies in special measures, and that if they are put in special measures then the shareholders who have made money out of the mismanagement of water companies should pay for it, not the taxpayer. In fact, this new bill is going to make it so operating costs on special administration get passed to billpayers if the sale of the water company does not cover these costs - and if Thames is sold for a very low price after going into special administration and this may need to happen.
In terms of jailing water bosses, the terms of reference for the data disclosure they would need to meet have not been set so we don’t know in which exact circumstances they would be jailed. It’s unlikely any will be jailed, this is just a measure for transparency. And crucially, they will not be jailed for illegally discharging sewage but for covering up discharges, so if they are transparent they do not face these personal criminal charges. It’s unlikely anyone will end up in prison.
And in terms of banning bonuses, the government is only banning them if the water company fails to meet environmental, fiscal and consumer targets. The government has not set out terms of reference for this either. At the moment, CEOs can be paid bonuses and given top marks by the EA even if they are found to recklessly dump sewage. So we need to see the terms of reference before we know how effective this will be.
There’s no doubt that a lot of this is good news, but most campaigners think this is tinkering around the edges. They think the regulators need funding and to be beefed up to properly crack down on this. Fines need to be levied which are high enough that water companies cannot afford not to invest in ending pollution. Ofwat has been worried about doing this as it could force companies into failure and therefore special administration if they are fined out of existence but arguably a company that cannot afford to operate within the law shouldn’t be allowed to continue operating.
Lucy Powell confirms MPs will vote on on means-testing winter fuel payments on Tuesday next week
In the Commons Lucy Powell, the leader of the Commons, has confirmed that MPs will vote on the regulations to means-test the winter fuel payments on Tuesday next week. It will be the first item for debate, which means the vote should come mid-afternoon.
Powell also made herself popular with MPs by announcing Commons recess dates for all the holidays until next summer. Chris Philp, her Tory shadow, said the dates were very helpful, and that she had saved him booking a flight he would otherwise have to cancel.
Updated
Ruth Davidson backs Russell Findlay for next Scottish Tory leader
Big news in the race to become the next leader of the Scottish Conservatives – which has been attracting a bit less attention than the UK leadership contest over the summer but has had its fair share of shenanigans, back-biting and drop-outs nonetheless.
Ruth Davidson – who rejuvenated the Scottish Conservatives and led them to electoral success in the 2010s – has urged Scottish members to support Russell Findlay, a former investigative journalist and currently justice spokesperson.
Findlay, who has proved a popular and outspoken MSP since his election in 2021, was already the favourite of senior Tories but has found this more of hindrance after allegations emerged that outgoing leader Douglas Ross had plotted to install him. Indeed, this so infuriated the other candidates that one, Meghan Gallacher, resigned as Ross’s deputy.
The other four candidates - Murdo Fraser, Jamie Greene, Liam Kerr and Brian Whittle - issued a joint statement expressing their concerns for the fairness of the contest. Since then, three of them have dropped out and fallen in behind Fraser, a party veteran who stood against Davidson in 2013 on a platform of splitting the Scottish Tories from the UK party.
With hustings now begun in earnest, the ballots going out early this month and the winner announced on Friday 27 September, Findlay has won the coveted Davidson endorsement – indeed, he launched his campaign last month with a promise to inject “the Ruth Davidson mojo” back into the party. He already has the support of all five Scottish Conservative MPs and 12 MSPs.
Writing in the Daily Mail, Davidson says:
Russell Findlay ticks all the right boxes. He became an MSP after a 30-year career working as a fearless and successful investigative journalist. That experience ensures he has the natural understanding of the concerns of mainstream voters which is an essential part of effective leadership.
He speaks from the heart and has the strength of character necessary both to make the hard calls and to build, lead and motivate a winning team.
Over the past weeks he has clearly demonstrated he has the ideas, deeply rooted in traditional Conservative values, which can provide that positive and uplifting vision for the future of our party and country.
A reader has got a question about the private members’ bill ballot. (See 10.10am.)
@Andrew: how is the ballot for deciding which MPs get to propose private members bills decided? Would the Tories have all needed to line up behind one or more candidates to have a chance of making the top 10 or 20? Or did all the other parties lock them out by voting en bloc for anyone but a Tory MP?*
*There is a third option: the Tories are sulking, but that’s their problem.
Good question. They choose the top 20 by pulling balls out of a big glass jar. The balls are all numbered, and MPs are allocated a number. It’s just like a tombola.
To add to the fun, it is televised too. You can watch the re-run here.
And here is a clip.
Kemi Badenoch says Labour's decision to suspend some arms sales to Israel shows it has given in to 'mob'
Another Tory leadership candidate, Kemi Badenoch, was also busy on social media last night. She posted a long thread on X escalating her criticism of the government over its decision to suspend some arms exports to Israel. It starts here.
🧵1/ It is not true that the removal of Israel arms licenses was a legal decision. Keir Starmer should not hide behind this fig leaf. It was *very* much a political decision. #PMQs
— Kemi Badenoch (@KemiBadenoch) September 4, 2024
I know this, because as Trade Secretary, responsible for arms licenses, I saw the legal advice.… pic.twitter.com/H9HeZIw8kY
Badenoch makes two main claims.
She claims that Keir Starmer was wrong when he told MPs at PMQs yesterday that the decision to suspend some arms sales to Israel was legal, not political. (In some respects Badenoch has a point, because these decisions inevitably have a political dimensions, but she ignores the fact that her government allowed all arms exports to continue because they were willing to ignore legal advice saying they might be used in breach of international humanitarian law.)
1/ It is not true that the removal of Israel arms licenses was a legal decision. Keir Starmer should not hide behind this fig leaf. It was *very* much a political decision. #PMQs I know this, because as Trade Secretary, responsible for arms licenses, I saw the legal advice. So why has the decision been made? It’s because Labour are scared…
She claims that, in making the decision to end some arms sales to Israel, Labour was giving in to “the mob”. She says her government ignored pressure from protesters to halt arms sales, and claims “we are now governed by a party that is not brave enough to face down intimidation and lobbying”. (This claim ignores the possibility that perhaps ministers were actually in favour of suspending arms sales in accordance with legal advice.)
This is why I am very concerned about the Prime Minister’s pretence today that this was a legal decision. It isn’t. It is VERY political. The Labour government has once again prioritised the mob over UK interests, making politically charged foreign policy decisions that lack legal reasoning and weaken our position in the global fight against Iran and her terrorist proxies.
Updated
Labour's Kim Leadbeater comes top in ballot for private members' bill, with no Tory in top 20
Here is the full list of the 20 MPs who have won a slot in the private members’ bill ballot.
1) Kim Leadbeater, Labour (Spen Valley)
2) Max Wilkinson, Liberal Democrats (Cheltenham)
3) Dr Roz Savage, Liberal Democrats (South Cotswolds)
4) Clive Lewis, Labour (Norwich South)
5) Josh MacAlister, Labour (Whitehaven and Workington)
6) Dr Scott Arthur, Labour (Edinburgh South West)
7) Jim Allister, Traditional Unionist Voice (North Antrim)
8) Peter Lamb, Labour (Crawley)
9) Alex McIntyre, Labour (Gloucester)
10) Andrew Ranger, Labour (Wrexham)
11) Jake Richards, Labour (Rother Valley)
12) Tracy Gilbert, Labour (Edinburgh North and Leith)
13) Linsey Farnsworth, Labour (Amber Valley)
14) John Grady, Labour (Glasgow East)
15) Rachael Maskell, Labour (Co-op), (York Central)
16) Ruth Jones, Labour (Newport West and Islwyn),
17) Dr Danny Chambers, Liberal Democrats (Winchester)
18) Sarah Owen, Labour (Luton North)
19) Wendy Chamberlain, Liberal Democrats (North East Fife)
20) Dr Rupa Huq, Labour (Ealing Central and Acton)
The order is important. All the MPs on the list will get the chance to present a private member’s bill to parliament (which means have it put down on the order paper for a first reading, which is just a formality). This will happen on Wednesday 16 October.
But only the top seven MPs on the list are guaranteed a full Friday where their bill will be debated. These are the ones with a realistic chance of getting a bill through the Commons, provided there is a majority for it, because time will be available. MPs who are lower down the list can get a bill through, but only if it is uncontroversial and likely to be rushed through quickly without any backbencher wanting to hold up the debate.
Interestingly, there are no Conservative MPs on the list. That might just be bad luck. But it is probably also a sign that many Tory MPs decided not to bother taking part in the ballot, perhaps because they are preoccupied with the leadership contest and perhaps because they think, given there is a massive non-Tory majority in the Commons, they have no chance of getting a law passed anyway.
Keir Starmer has said that he would support legislation to allow assisted dying through a private member’s bill and the MPs at the top of the list will come under pressure from campaigners to choose assisted dying as the topic for their bill. (When they enter the ballot, they don’t have to say what bill they will table if they are successful.)
UPDATE: I have changed a sentence in the original post so it now says only the top seven MPs on the list are guaranteed a full day for their bill to get a second reading. (Originally it said it was normally around six MPs who get a reserved slot.) A Commons spokesperson later said that there are 13 Fridays set aside for private members’ bills. On the first seven Fridays, second reading debates come first (which means seven bills get a clear run at getting a second reading). On the other days, MPs start by dealing with the remaining stages of private members’ bills that passed second reading. If there is time, bills below the top seven may get debated. But normally most of the bills that don’t make the top seven run out of time.
Updated
Robert Jenrick claims case for Tory members to get more say in how party run now 'unarguable'
Robert Jenrick, who came top in the first round of voting by MPs in the Tory leadership ballot yesterday, paid tribute to Priti Patel in a post on X last night.
My friend @pritipatel is a relentless champion for Conservatism whose experience will be invaluable as we rebuild.
— Robert Jenrick (@RobertJenrick) September 4, 2024
Her campaign means the case for party reform is now unarguable.
We must democratise the party, empower members and grow our membership. https://t.co/xlydSYfhaM
My friend @pritipatel is a relentless champion for Conservatism whose experience will be invaluable as we rebuild.
Her campaign means the case for party reform is now unarguable.
We must democratise the party, empower members and grow our membership.
Patel campaigned on a platform calling for party members to have more say in how the party is run. Given that she came last in yesterday’s ballot, there is no logical reason for Jenrick to say her campaign has made the case for party reform “unarguable”. Quite the opposite, the result implies. But there is an obvious political reason why Jenrick is saying this. He is angling to pick up votes from some of her MP supporters, and perhaps an endorsement from Patel herself.
Updated
The Labour MP Kim Leadbeater has come out top in the Commons private member’s bill ballot, PA Media reports. The MP for Spen Valley in West Yorkshire will now have the first chance among MPs to bring forward a Bill of her choice, which she would like to become law.
Some 458 MPs entered this session’s ballot.
In her inteview with Times Radio this morning Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister, was also asked about her dancing antics on holiday in Ibiza last week, where film of her behind the DJ deck at a club made the news, and generated sneering from some of the more unhinged figures on the right. Rayner replied:
People have an opinion, but you know, if I’m on holiday for a couple of days, I’m on holiday for a couple of days ... I think we’ve all had a dance at one time in our lives and I don’t know, it’s subjective to whether or not I can dance or not!
And on Sky News she said:
I take my job really seriously, and I’m always in parliament and I’m always doing what needs to be done and I’ll continue to do that.
I’m working class, I like a dance, I like dance music. I got criticised for going to the opera if you remember - I was a champagne socialise for going to the theatre.
Updated
Grenfell report highlights need for ‘cultural shift’ to ensure social tenants treated with more respect, Rayner says
Good morning. Angela Rayner, the housing secretary and deputy prime minister, has been doing an interview round this morning. She has a lot in her portfolio but, understandably, most of the questions were about the Grenfell Tower fire report out yesterday. Here are some of the main lines.
Rayner said the report highlighted the “disgraceful” treatment of social tenants. She told the Today programme she wanted to see a “cultural shift to empowering people”. She went on:
I think the people of Grenfell were dismissed and not listened to and were not empowered as tenants.
And I think that we’ve got to make sure that greed and profit is not put above safety …
There is a total imbalance for tenants at the moment, and social tenants in particular have a stigma attached to them.
And as someone who was a social tenant all of my childhood and into my adulthood, I completely appreciate that there is a culture in this country where they’re considered lesser people, and that’s disgraceful.
She said she wanted to the police and the Crown Prosecution Service as “as quickly as possible” to bring people to justice over the fire, but she said it was an “incredibly complex investigation”.
She said that money was available to remove dangerous cladding still on tower blocks and that there was “no excuse” for building owners not acting. She told BBC Breakfast:
At the moment, there’s £5bn that’s available for remediation, so I don’t accept that the money’s not there. And these companies, the people that own these buildings, have financial resources as well. I don’t accept that there is not the money to do this remediation … There’s no excuse to not do this work now.
She suggested she would pass a new law to speed up the removal of dangerous cladding. She told Times Radio:
I am determined to make sure that our remediation acceleration plan comes forward with, if we need changes to legislation, which I believe we will, especially in light of the report findings that we have got now which we will have to go through and to ensure that we do everything we possibly can to speed this up.
Here is the agenda for the day.
9am: Nusrat Ghani, the deputy speaker, reads out the names of the MPs who have won the right to bring forward a private member’s bill in the private members’s ballot. Twenty MPs get selected, but only the top half dozen or so have a realistic chance of being given enough time to get a bill into law.
10.30am: Steve Reed, the environment secretary, gives a speech on the government’s plans to crack down on the water industry. He is also publishing the water (special measures) bill.
After 10.30am: Lucy Powell, the leader of the Commons, takes questions in the Commons about next week’s business.
11.30am: No 10 holds a lobby briefing.
After 11.30am: MPs debate the second reading of the Great British Energy bill.
Noon: John Swinney, Scotland’s first minister, takes questions from MSPs.
Lunchtime: The Cabinet Office publishes its House of Lords (hereditary peers) bill, that will remove the right of the 92 hereditary peers still in the Lords to be there.
If you want to contact me, please post a message below the line (BTL) or message me on social media. I can’t read all the messages BTL, but if you put “Andrew” in a message aimed at me, I am more likely to see it because I search for posts containing that word.
If you want to flag something up urgently, it is best to use social media. I’m still using X and I’ll see something addressed to @AndrewSparrow very quickly. I’m also trying Bluesky (@andrewsparrowgdn) and Threads (@andrewsparrowtheguardian).
I find it very helpful when readers point out mistakes, even minor typos (no error is too small to correct). And I find your questions very interesting too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either BTL or sometimes in the blog.
Updated
