← Back to Parliament Matters episode page

This transcript is automatically generated. There are consequently minor errors and the text is not formatted according to our style guide. If you wish to reference or cite the transcript please first check against the audio version. Timestamps are provided for ease of reference.

PMP E116 ===

Intro: [00:00:00] You are listening to Parliament Matters, a Hansard Society production supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust. Learn more at hansardsociety.org.uk/PM.

Ruth Fox: Welcome to Parliament Matters, the podcast about the institution at the heart of our democracy Parliament itself. I'm Ruth Fox.

Mark D'Arcy: And I'm Mark D'Arcy. And coming up in this week's episode,

Ruth Fox: Budgets, bad language and beguilingly good job offers from mysterious Chinese sources - the issues hanging over Parliament this week.

Mark D'Arcy: The assisted dying bill inches forward in the House of Lords as Peers debate a record number of amendments

Ruth Fox: And defrosting the UK-EU relationship. We talk to the Westminster and Strasbourg parliamentarians with their finger on the pulse of our post-Brexit negotiations.

Mark D'Arcy: But first, Ruth, it's only just landed and we haven't had a chance to fully [00:01:00] digest it yet, but the report of the Covid Inquiry is out and it discusses all sorts of things that perhaps aren't going to come as a terrible surprise to the waiting world. That the Downing Street operation under Boris Johnson was a bit chaotic. Dominic Cummings wasn't an entirely nice person to work with, and other shock findings haven't exactly rocked the world of politics. But from the point of view of this podcast, there was quite a lot of interesting discussion about one of your favorite issues. Oh, yes. Statutory Instruments. If you think back to the Covid era, for a time there were some of the biggest restrictions to personal liberty this country has ever seen, and people seemed to be living on top of a kind of decaying, sedimentary layers of Statutory Instruments, about when you had to wear a mask and when you could go out and for what purposes and the circumstances under which you could have socially distanced meetings with various members of your family.

All sorts of very, very important issues where the law seemed to be being updated almost in real time. Every time you blinked there was another Statutory [00:02:00] Instrument out there and even the police in the end were not able to keep up with this. Government ministers were on the radio getting into terrible trouble trying to explain the rules and then discovering they got it wrong when they came off air.

Spokespersons having to quickly rush out corrections. You know "what the minister meant to say was", it just seemed to go on and on for a very long time and the whole thing really did highlight the limitations, the problems with emergency lawmaking in these admittedly incredibly difficult circumstances.

Ruth Fox: It did. I mean it's, it's brought back some bad memories, mark, not just of Covid itself, but also those many hours that my colleagues and I spent monitoring the Statutory Instruments that were being put out by the Government, day by day, hundreds and hundreds of them. I should say thank you to the Covid Inquiry because they've used our data for their reports. That's very good of them and footnoted it. Thank you.

Mark D'Arcy: 582 Statutory Instruments of which 118 were put through by the affirmative procedure. Tell us what that means.

Ruth Fox: Yeah, so the, the report highlights the problems with the legislative scrutiny of [00:03:00] the Statutory Instruments as they were going through.

And if you remember, of course, Mark, when this all kicked off in March, 2020, Parliament itself had a problem because it wasn't able to sit. If you have got to be socially distanced you couldn't have everybody crammed into the Chamber. So it was a really, really difficult period. The report highlights, again, nothing new, frankly, for anybody who's looked at these issues previously. And I was part of a Commission last year organised by the Bingham Centre, looking at what happened in Covid with emergency powers and, and lessons for the future. And, and this latest inquiry report reflects some of that work and some of those recommendations. But essentially, if you are bringing forward emergency regulations, emergency powers, essentially a lot of these provisions were made at the minister's signature on a piece of paper and parliamentary scrutiny follows.

It's, it's retrospective. Yeah, it's retrospective scrutiny. And, and that is a problem. And it was particularly a problem during the pandemic because of the time that Ministers waited before putting these regulations before Parliament to [00:04:00] be debated and voted on. There were quite significant time delays.

Mark D'Arcy: I mean, there, there were a couple of interesting points about this.

First of all, most Statutory Instruments are only debated if someone objects to them formally. Affirmative Statutory Instruments are ones that have to be debated within a certain timeframe. It's usually 28 days, I think.

Ruth Fox: Draft affirmatives, they've got to be debated at the time before they become law.

There's no time limit. So it's when the House gets the debate and schedules it.

Mark D'Arcy: Pulls on his anorak of office? Yeah.

Ruth Fox: The made affirmatives that were happening during the pandemic, and which are talked about here, because it's retrospective, yes, there was this 28 day time limit.

Mark D'Arcy: My old friend, the made affirmative Statutory Instrument Once upon a time the classic example of this was the Intoxicated Shellfish Order sometime in the 1980s when there were lots of poisoned oysters or something around. And it, it conjures up the impression of an inebriated oyster staggering away from a bar. But, uh, the joke wears rather thin when it's on really substantial restrictions to personal freedom in the situation of a pandemic.

And there were lots and lots of these, [00:05:00] and there would be one amending the other. And sometimes the first Statutory Instrument hadn't been debated before it had been amended or possibly even repealed because the Government took so long to put them before MPs.

Ruth Fox: Yeah. The Inquiry recommends that, um, it was a problem not just for the UK government, but also for the devolved governments. And it recommends that the draft affirmative procedure, the standard process, should be used wherever possible. Now, from my initial reading of the report, where I think the Inquiry perhaps doesn't take account of the situation back in, in March 2020, was that precisely, they didn't know whether Parliament, the chambers were going to be able to sit or how they were going to be able to sit.

So that influenced, I think, some of the decision making around the process. It makes things, you know, bog standard recommendations for sunset clauses, which, we've all recommended these things.

It does recommend a duty on ministers to report to their legislatures every two months on the exercise of the emergency powers. So that's a, you know, possible additional lever that a Parliament in the future would have.

Mark D'Arcy: One of the internal debates that they had around a [00:06:00] lot of this was under which set of laws should they issue some of these regulations?

Because there's a thing called the Civil Contingencies Act dating back to 2004, but that requires a lot of direct rapid parliamentary scrutiny. You know, things must be debated in Parliament within seven days or within 28 days or whatever. And so that was thought to be a bit clunky in circumstances where, as you say, Parliament might not be available to debate them.

There's an older piece of legislation, the 1984 Public Health Act, which deals with pandemics and epidemic disease, and I think that was the instrument of choice for quite a long time for bringing in these kind of restrictions and the quarantine restrictions and the social distancing and all the rest of it.

So there was a lot of government discussion about that, and I dare say now, somewhere in an office in Whitehall, someone is considering whether the whole legislative framework needs to be updated. But the flip side of that is I think that Parliament really does have to think itself about how it in future would process emergency regulations issued in an emergency situation.

Ruth Fox: Hmm.

Mark D'Arcy: And [00:07:00] that's something that shouldn't just be left a minister to decide, so that they're setting out the terms of which Parliament engages with them.

Ruth Fox: Well, I guess, Mark, the question is, what is the House of Commons response going to be to this? I mean, I assume that there'll probably be a ministerial statement next week, perhaps, although of course it would be current ministers commenting on the actions of previous ministers.

But nonetheless, they're going to have to take forward the recommendations of this Inquiry. And for the House of Commons, because there are these recommendations about scrutiny of emergency powers, about the legislative model that should be used then, is this something that, for example, the Procedure Committee should be picking up?

I would argue though, it opens up a broader debate because quite a lot of the restrictions that really affected people and that were problematic, were not under these made affirmatives alone, and they were also under the made negative procedure, just to get further into the weeds. The transport regulations, for example, the, the restrictions on closing of, of airports and ports, the controls that were put on people who'd come into the country who were effectively quarantined for quite extensive periods in hotels and so on.

[00:08:00] All of those restrictions were never going to be subject to a debate by MPs and peers because they were subject to the made negative procedure, which meant that those don't get an automatic debate. They come into force, they are law unless MPs vote to overturn them. But as we talked about, because the Government controls the parliamentary agenda, that's very difficult.

So there are some bigger issues, I think that the inquiry report doesn't really pick up and which the Procedure Committee would need to.

Mark D'Arcy: And this is the, the point that Jack Straw as Leader of the House way back in the Blair years used to make, which is that actually if you know that you're going to have to get what you are proposing through parliamentary scrutiny, it makes for better lawmaking.

You are more cautious. And also, frankly, the, the input of MPs, who see how powers are working out on the ground can also be very important in subsequent updates to some of these regulations. Remember, they were eternally being updated and tweaked by more Statutory instruments as we went on. I mean, there, there was a occasion described in, in the Covid Inquiry report where the National Council of [00:09:00] Police Chiefs was told one six - 16 minutes - before a power came into force, what that power would be.

Now, the people who were supposed to go out and enforce whatever restrictions were being proposed simply don't have time under those kind of circumstances to provide any meaningful guidance to the, the foot sloggers on the ground. So things were becoming almost absurd at that point. And having Members of Parliament being able to weigh in and say, steady on a minute, this is unworkable, might actually prove to be quite valuable in just getting the powers right.

Ruth Fox: Well, there's this chicken and egg theory that I had throughout Covid, which was all the problems with the regulations and the guidance and the, the way in which it became quite chaotic and therefore that affected the police and that affected us as citizens. The fallout from it all, was that because it was too easy for them to legislate, to regulate through the process. And, and they just got into the habit of doing it. It was far too easy to amend these things, you know, in very, very detailed terms. And then the guidance [00:10:00] then got very messy and people just were completely confused. If the parliamentary scrutiny had been a little bit more difficult and it had been more challenging for them to get these regulations through would that have imposed a discipline on Whitehall, particularly on Ministers?

Mark D'Arcy: It's a general principle of lawmaking I think, that there should be plenty of sort of scrutiny phases between a bright idea suddenly flashing into being in the, in the forebrain of a Minister and it being on the statute book.

And in this circumstance, quite understandably, because, you know, it was an emergency and a lot of people were staggered by the magnitude of the crisis, a lot of very scrappy law was made.

Ruth Fox: And you can excuse that I think in March, April, May of 2020. I don't think you can excuse that in December 2021, January 22, February 22. I think that's became the problem. Well, we will no doubt to see more fallout from that over the coming weeks and, and keep an eye on what, uh, the responses of the parliamentary committees may be.

But Mark, one question that occurred to me this week that I wanted to ask [00:11:00] you is, have you been tapped up at all on LinkedIn?

Mark D'Arcy: Uh, yes. This is the, this is this fabulously fascinating tale that Chinese intelligence operatives have been using job ads on LinkedIn to ensnare parliamentary stuff, or at least to seek to ensnare parliamentary stuff. Now, this comes hard on the heels of that case of spying in the House of Commons and an All Party Parliamentary Group on China and a lot of other wider concerns about the espionage activities of the Chinese state.

And I must say, in answer to your question, no, I haven't been tapped up on LinkedIn.

Ruth Fox: Are you disappointed?

Mark D'Arcy: It, it, it's one of those moments when you discover....

Ruth Fox: Parliamentary expert not tapped up!

Mark D'Arcy: That whether or not you want to sell out, in any case, nobody's buying. So alas, I will just have to scrape by. But it is a somewhat alarming story for MPs to consider, particularly I think, because you know, one of the things that they do have the ability to do is hire pretty much anybody they like to work in their private [00:12:00] offices. I've never particularly heard of a case where the security vetting that you get to hold a parliamentary pass has ever actually turned anybody down who's been proposed by an MP to work there.

Ruth Fox: I've heard of cases of that happening, and I've certainly had instances where members of staff that I worked with who had moved around the country a lot or had lived abroad, it had taken a very, very long time to get them through the vetting process to get their passes. But yeah, the problem isn't the vetting of the candidates, it's their awareness of how they might be tapped up. So when the staff is applying for the pass, doesn't seem to be the problem. The problem isn't with the staff member originally. It's what happens afterwards once they're in the House and effectively being groomed by what turns out to be Chinese operatives.

Mark D'Arcy: Indeed. And I don't know quite how you defend against that, except by encouraging the awareness of the individuals that just as with all sorts of others, online scams, if it looks too good to be true.

Ruth Fox: Well it probably is.

Mark D'Arcy: Maybe it, it probably is. But it is worth saying that, that there is a very great [00:13:00] enthusiasm for intelligence agencies and I'm sure it's not just the Chinese, to get inside intel on what's going on in the British legislature. And the information that you might be vending out to them might seem quite trivial to you, but, but all the same.

It's all part of a jigsaw.

Ruth Fox: Yeah. We get periodically offers from Chinese academics, allegedly, reputedly. Can we organise a visit for which we'll receive quite a substantial sum of money for, you know, this particular group of students or a group of officials who want to learn more about post legislative scrutiny was one I think recently, and I'm afraid I, I ignore them.

Mark D'Arcy: I think it's probably extremely prudent that you should do so. Which brings us onto another interesting question actually, that we've got down on our batting list of emerging parliamentary issues this week, which is language in the House.

When she gave a very trenchant statement on Monday about the proposed changes to immigration rules, Shabana Mahmood, the new Home Secretary, used a term that I'm not [00:14:00] sure I should repeat on a family podcast to describe the racist abuse she had been on the receiving end of. We will just have to leave it to the imagination of listeners, but let, let, let us say that it was, uh..

Ruth Fox: Two, four letter words,

Mark D'Arcy: Two four letter words, one of which was a racial slur, and she was brought up by the, the Chair. I don't think it was the Speaker, the Deputy Speakers. Deputy speaker in the Chair at the time, but it wasn't strictly speaking, I think out of order. It was a very unpleasant term, but it wasn't directed against another member so it wasn't therefore out of order, I suppose she was brought up on it because it was just indecorous.

Ruth Fox: Yeah. Unparliamentary language in the, in the Chamber, I guess. Yeah. In the context it sort of struck a discordant note of the Chair sort of upgrading her, the, um, Home Secretary for telling the Chamber about an offensive term that has been directed at her. Yeah. Um, so it felt a bit slightly odd. My initial reaction was, oh, I think that was a bit unnecessary. You could have left that alone, but then the more you reflect on it, you think, well should we be allowing [00:15:00] that kind of language in the House? Even if you are reporting what has been said about you.

Mark D'Arcy: I think the feeling is that you don't want the house to sound like a unruly saloon bar shortly before closing time, and you want to be a little bit careful about the language that is used, but I, I'm sure it's not the first time and it certainly won't be the last in which the "f" bomb has been detonated on the floor of either the House of Commons or the House of Lords.

Ruth Fox: No, and I also think you've got to be careful about the extent to which you are sanitising the level of abuse that is being directed at people of, of different racial backgrounds, and particularly politicians from ethnic minority backgrounds on a, a day-to-day basis. I mean, you know, this is sort of the normal language that they face day to day.

Mark D'Arcy: Most MPs these days are in receipt of a level of abuse that would've stunned and horrified previous generations in Parliament. It's now almost a routine, if rather horrible part of parliamentary existence.

Ruth Fox: Yeah. Onto the big news of the week. [00:16:00] Or news of next week probably, the Budget. This saga goes on and on a very elongated process for the Budget.

We've got endless, well allegedly leaks. Ministers deny that it's coming from them, but clearly well sourced information that the journalists are getting from the Treasury about what is happening or what is going to happen in, in next week's Budget.

Mark D'Arcy: And Mister Speaker Hoyle was sufficiently annoyed that he, he directly rebuked Ministers earlier this week as well.

Ruth Fox: Should we take a listen to what he said?

Speaker Lindsay Hoyle MP: It isn't normal for a Budget to have been put in the press. It's the hokey cokey Budget. One minute it's in. Next minute it's out. I am very worried, like the previous government, which also had to be reprimanded, for putting leaks out. It is not good policy. At one time, a Minister would be resigning for anything that was released. So what I would say is this House should be sacrosanct in all decisions and should be heard here first. Yeah.

Ruth Fox: Mark, my immediate response to that was, um, he began his statement by saying it isn't normal for this budget information to hit the press. I think it [00:17:00] is, that's the problem.

Mark D'Arcy: It's almost part of the constitutional process now that you can read all about the major contents of the Budget in, in, in the previous Sunday in the, in the ritual Tim Shipman piece that used to appear in the Sunday Times. He's now moved to the Spectator, but I dare say he's doing the same kind of thing there. Almost all the contents of the Budget are briefed out and revealed. Maybe they keep one big surprise for the journalist to write about on the day, but the idea that budgets are guarded in kind of capitalistic secrecy and that ministers resign if an iota of information is let out, I mean people tend to point to the famous occasion when Hugh Dalton as Chancellor in Clement Attlee's government blurted out part the contents of his Budget to a journalist before going into the Chamber to deliver it. And that pretty much ended his career. That sort of thing doesn't really happen anymore. It's so extensively leaked.

Ruth Fox: Yeah. And there used to be a sort of view that you're dealing with market sensitive data and this has affected the markets over recent weeks. If you are a, a company, I mean, if you're a FTSE chief executive, for example, or finance officer, there are [00:18:00] quite important rules, regulations, laws of the land, about what you can and can't do in terms of market sensitive information. Laws incidentally, that parliamentarians make for others, but apparently not themselves.

It's getting beyond a joke at this point. Problem, I think is the Speaker keeps raising this. This wasn't the first and only statement this week that the Speaker made against Ministers criticising them for, for breaking the ministerial code and not bringing statements to the House first and putting them in the media. There was also one about, from the MOD about the Russian warship...

Mark D'Arcy: Firing a laser at a UK jet...

Ruth Fox: Yeah. So that he criticized, uh, the, the Defence Secretary for that. The problem for the Speaker is he keeps having to do this and nothing is changing.

Mark D'Arcy: The problem is here, if he looks powerless. Yeah. It's because, uh, he is powerless.

Yeah. He doesn't have any kind of serious sanction he can make against Ministers. He gets up quite regularly and rebukes Ministers, but that's water off a duck's back. They say, oh, so dreadfully, sorry Mr. Speaker didn't, didn't have anything to do with it. Nothing. Nothing to see here Gov.

Ruth Fox: I mean, he's kicked it [00:19:00] into the lap of the Public Administration Committee to do an inquiry on this.

And they've had the, the Leader and Shadow Leader of the House up in front of them. But we've not yet seen the report. I don't know when that will be coming out, probably fairly soon. I do wonder whether he just needs to take a different approach. So standing up and basically saying, you know, you're breaking your own Ministerial Code. He uses the sort of the, the terms "reminds ministers of the requirement in the government's own Ministerial Code that made your announcements be made to the House in the first instance, not the media". So he makes that statement and nothing changes. And so I do wonder whether a different approach would be to turn to the Treasury front branch, whoever's the most senior Minister there, say to him or her, come to the Dispatch Box and explain to the House why this matter on the Budget or this defence matter, this defence of the realm issue is not a major announcement. And let them squirm rather than him be the focus when he, when he has to make a statement.

Mark D'Arcy: Well, a bit of ritual humiliation is always fun, and it might be a deterrent. I can remember back in the distant past, Greg Clark, Conservative [00:20:00] cabinet minister, found himself under John Bercow having to answer questions on a, a statement for I think a good 90 minutes.

I, I imagine he'd thought he'd, he'd get out of it in about half that time. And Bercow said at the end of the statement that he had strung this out precisely as a sort of punishment for the Minister for allowing things to appear in the press before there'd been announced to the House. And I suppose that is a bit of a deterrent, but not much of one if you don't have a Speaker who is willing to do that every time.

Ruth Fox: And of course that has an impact later in the day. Um, the availability of time for things like legislation and other matters that gets squeezed. So it's not an ideal solution and it didn't fix it then. And the problem is, is ongoing. I can't say it's necessarily getting worse, but it's certainly not getting better.

Mark D'Arcy: But the major question of the Budget we've gotta come onto is that it is such a major political moment. The Government has marched up to the top of the hill on raising income tax, and now it's marched back down again, said, uh, the latest forecast suggests we don't actually need to break our election promise after all.

And this to put it gently hasn't made the [00:21:00] government, Rachel Reeves in particular, look very good.

Ruth Fox: No, I mean, it looks incoherent. It looks chaotic. It doesn't give the country the impression that they know what they're doing and that they've got a plan, which I think is what we have already known for some time. There is no plan apparently, but it's obviously increasing the pressure on them politically on those two individuals, the top of government. If this doesn't land well next week, who knows what the ramifications may be. Certainly debate at Westminster on the Labour side is ramping up about whether or not they should remain in office and Keir Starmer whether he should remain in office.

And we saw, of course this week Clive Lewis proffering up his seat to Andy Burnham in Norwich if he wanted to get him into the House to do a leadership challenge.

Mark D'Arcy: Yeah. Clive Lewis, one of Labour's class of 2015, so came into Parliament pretty much the same time as Sir Keir Starmer. And he's not on the front bench or anything, he is a usual suspect's dissident back bencher a lot of the time.

He was quoted offering up his seat to Andy Burnham, the [00:22:00] Mayor of Greater Manchester, if he wanted to get into the House of Commons in order to mount a leadership challenge to Sir Keir Starmer and replace him as Prime Minister. And Andy Burnham is almost the, the kind of the most favored alternative to Sir Keir Starmer. Apart from the small disadvantage of not being an MP, he can't become Prime Minister.

Ruth Fox: Yeah. Most favored alternative by some, I wouldn't say necessarily everybody in the Labour Party. And to be fair to Clive Lewis, I don't think he went into that interview planning to proffer up his seat.

But when put on the spot by a journalist, "Well, if you, if you think the situation's so bad and you think Keir Starmer should have a challenge, are you willing to give up your seat to allow Andy Burnham to, to come in?" he gave an honest answer to a straight question, and he said, if I'm sitting here talking about country before party, then I probably have to, don't I? So I don't think he, he necessarily planned to resign as, uh, as MP for Norwich.

Mark D'Arcy: I think the good voters of his Norwich South constituency might be slightly miffed at being almost taken for granted here. I, I don't think it's always a popular thing for your seat to be used as a [00:23:00] vehicle for the return to Parliament or some grandee who happens to be out of it at the time.

Ruth Fox: No. And also given Labour's polling ratings, there's no guarantee that he'd win a by election anyway.

Mark D'Arcy: Well, the Greens do pretty well in Norwich. Yeah. Uh, they have a pretty decent vote in Norwich and you could imagine a sort of mano a mano contest between uh, Andy Burnham hoping to be the next Prime Minister and Zak Polanski, the leader of the Greens who also doesn't happen to be in Parliament at the moment and might quite fancy his chances. We are running before our horse to market a bit here, but that is quite a tasty possibility were that option to be taken, which frankly I doubt it would be. I think Andy Burnham, if he's got any sense, would seek a seat in Greater Manchester if he wanted to pull that manoeuvre. Although the people who've been suggested might be on the verge of relinquishing their seat to him have both denied - this is Graham, Graham Stringer, the veteran -former minister, and, uh, Andrew Gwynn - have both denied that they have any intention of giving up their seat for him.

Ruth Fox: Yeah. But before we take a quick break, Mark, just going back to the Budget itself in the, in the in the House next week.

Mark D'Arcy: Oh yes, there's one little techy nuance that we really do need to explore. Yes.

Ruth Fox: So I just want to give a heads up, particularly to any [00:24:00] MPs or their staff that are listening, to look out for what the first motion will be, the first Ways and Means motion for the Budget next week.

And if you can, to be pressing the Government before Wednesday to ensure that it is an Amendment of the Law motion, not an Income Tax motion.

Mark D'Arcy: Pulls his anorak more tightly about him.

Ruth Fox: Yes. I know it's techy and in the weeds this, but it does matter.

Mark D'Arcy: Because these are the motions that kind of set the terms of what can be debated as MPs process the Finance bill, the bill that enacts the provisions of the Budget. Yeah.

Ruth Fox: So an Amendment of the Law motion, if I just read this Mark very quick, it would read something like "it is expedient to amend the law with respect to the national debt and the public revenue and to make further provision in connection with finance."

That's quite broad. The alternative Ways and Means motion that governments have gotten into the habit recently of tabling instead is an Income Tax motion, which essentially is a, [00:25:00] a motion for the charging of income tax. And that would restrict the - this is the important bit - that would restrict the scope of amendments in the Finance Bill and the scope of debate at Committee Stage in particular to income tax issues. Whereas uh, an Amendment of the Law motion would enable back bench MPs to have much wider scope in terms of their amendments. So, you know, alternative tax provisions if you like, or things like tax administration and so on. So the Amendment of the Law motion is important because it's broader. And if you narrow the scope to the Income Tax motion only, then you limit what you can do at Committee Stage.

Mark D'Arcy: And if you think back to previous governments, uh, there was a point, and I can't quite remember where it was now, where Conservative Chancellors began not having an Amendment to the Law motion when their Budgets and their Finance Bills were being discussed.

And there was a huge hue and cry raised by the Labour shadow ministers, a certain Wes Streeting, and there was a, [00:26:00] a certain Jonathan Reynolds, now the Labour Chief Whip making a huge fuss about this as an outrageous curtailment of debate. And it's a terrible manipulation of the rules. And now Labour Governments are doing it. They certainly did it in their first budget. Will they do it in their second?

Ruth Fox: Amendment of the Law motions historically have been the norm, but since 2018, the Income Tax motion appears to have become the norm. And it's not unknown in a Budget very quickly after a general election. Sometimes that's been an Income Tax motion historically. But the question is, will they stick with recent precedent of the Income Tax motion or will they resort to what historically has been the norm?

And it does matter to all the back benchers in the House.

Mark D'Arcy: I'm trying to formulate a kind of law here, which is that when they get into Government, parties do all the things that they complained were outrageous manipulations of the rules when they were in opposition and vice versa.

Ruth Fox: Yeah. We are actually writing to Jonny Reynolds as the Chief Whip.

We are saying to, to Jonny Reynolds, bearing in mind what you've said in the past, will [00:27:00] you please ensure as Chief Whip that it's an Amendment of the Law motion next week.

Mark D'Arcy: And on that thought, Ruth, uh, I'm going to propose an amendment to the pod motion that we take a quick break.

Ruth Fox: Take a quick break. See you in a minute.

Mark D'Arcy: Carried.

And we are back and as we've been recording this, their Lordship's house has just finished another day's Committee Stage deliberation on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, the measure that would legalise assisted dying in England and Wales. And it hasn't been going rapidly, Ruth.

Ruth Fox: No, it hasn't. So, uh, they've got through three groups of amendments across two days.

And to put that in context, there are, at the moment 83 groups of amendments. Now that could grow because, uh, for each Committee Stage sitting, you can still continue tabling amendments.

Over a thousand have been laid and, uh, that is by some distance the highest number this parliamentary session, I mean the next highest for the first day [00:28:00] of Committee in the Lords for another bill is the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which had 725.

So some way ahead of that. The position at the moment is still that there's four days in Committee. We're halfway through that. There is no prospect at all this rate that they are going to get through all of those amendments in the remaining two days before Christmas.

Mark D'Arcy: And with us in the studio is our Lord's procedural guru, the former Clerk of the Parliaments, the Chief Clerk of the House of Lords, Sir David Beamish.

Now David, uh, do you share that assessment? Is this go slow?

Sir David Beamish: Uh, well I wouldn't call it go slow, but I certainly share Ruth's assessment that there's no way they're going to get through in four days, as was the plan. Following the debates quite a lot of people have quite a lot they want to say, so that without anything that looks like filibustering, it's going to need a lot of attention.

This is a bill where a lot of Peers are anxious about the safeguards before it goes on the statute book, and they're going to need some new plan if they're to get it through this session, bearing in mind that this is only Committee Stage and you need [00:29:00] time for Report Stage and then a a another day for Third Reading after that.

And importantly because even the bill sponsor in the Lords has quite a few amendments, time for the Commons to process what the Lords have done.

Mark D'Arcy: So the original intent of of having this bill through its Committee Stage by Christmas has gone the way of all such intentions, really.

Sir David Beamish: If they were to do it simply by having four Friday sittings, absolutely.

They would need something quite different to find more time for it. Some other days.

Mark D'Arcy: So what are the options here? Because the Government doesn't have an infinite supply of sitting Fridays available to hold these debates. Is there a prospect of them having more debating time at other points in the week?

Is there a prospect of them trying to come up with some other wacky manoeuvre to get things through?

Sir David Beamish: Well, the use of Friday sittings for Private Members Bills is a relatively recent arrangement and there used to be a time when they'd be fitted in at convenient times earlier in the week and subject to the Government's own programe, there's no reason why they shouldn't. Though for something like this, there's no point [00:30:00] in giving it the odd hour, which you used to be able to do for a small Private Member's bill.

So, short of taking it over as a Government bill and one can understand the Government's reluctance to do that, it's hard to see what could be done to get it through before, well, should we say at least the end of January.

Ruth Fox: Yeah, I mean the options are more sitting Fridays, but there are issues with that. I mean, they're only doing what, 10 till three?

That's the norm each day, five hours, which is the norm for Friday. So one scenario is you sit longer on a Friday, but that presents problems for Peers who, you know, they don't all live in London and Southeast. Some of them are traveling quite long distances. They've got to get back home. We had, at the beginning of, of last week's, uh, debate at the start of Committee Stage, we had a number of Peers who are members of faith groups, the, the Jewish faith, the the Muslim faith for whom Fridays are sacrosanct in terms of a number of Peers needing to get to the synagogue, for example, in the afternoon on Friday.

Mark D'Arcy: And and even without that, I imagine there would [00:31:00] be Peers looking around and thinking of their train timetable. Yeah. Up, up home and thinking, you know, those graphs aren't going to shoot themselves.

We've gotta get up there.

Ruth Fox: That's a very old fashioned view Mark of the...

Mark D'Arcy: Call me cynical.

Ruth Fox: Yes. So there are some challenges with just sitting longer on Fridays. They could sit more regularly. I mean, we know that there are three further Friday sittings in the New Year that are scheduled, the usual one a month for Private Members Bills.

They could schedule additional second or a third Friday in each of those months.

Mark D'Arcy: But at this rate though, David, it's still such a slow crawl that those Fridays would be effortlessly eaten up and there'll still be plenty of amendments left undebated.

Sir David Beamish: I think that's right. I mean, I think we certainly will need to programme some more Friday sittings in the New Year in the same way that they're having more than the one a month to get the Committee Stage through. But how many they'll need, I wouldn't like to guess.

Mark D'Arcy: Also, it's not just a matter of Peers diaries, if you like. If the government indicates its intention to allow sort of drone till you drop sessions where they just go on and on late into the night, that would be seen as kind of dirty [00:32:00] pool.

Sir David Beamish: I think it would be very unpopular.

Um, whereas so far we haven't seen anything look like filibustering. One can imagine that those who don't like the Bill might feel two can play at that game. If you are going to try and make us sit at uncivilised hours, we can make sure that lots of people speak on every amendment or whatever to frustrate that approach. So I think they need to be cautious about going down that road.

Ruth Fox: Well, I think it's perhaps just worth setting in context for listeners, we always thought four days at Committee Stage was unrealistic, and if you look at those two bills I mentioned earlier, the Children's Wellbeing, Crime and Policing bill in this Session, which have got the highest amendments apart from the assisted buying bill. They're government bills, of course. They've had about 12 days in Committee in the House of Lords. So that gives you a sense of the difference in scale here of what may be required. And even 12 is looking quite low on the, the radar if given the, the sheer volume of amendments for this bill.

Sir David Beamish: I think if they programmed 12, they probably could work out a sensible program to get through by then. And people [00:33:00] might realise that they needed to cooperate so as not to appear to be filibustering and secretly trying to hole the whole thing below the waterline.

Mark D'Arcy: But 12 sitting days just for this Committee would take you well into March.

And then you've still got to have Report Stage, so that's another couple of sitting Fridays. And then you have to deal with ping-pong in the Commons. And that all assumes that the Government hasn't ended the session, prorogued the House by then, which you might want to do for other reasons.

Sir David Beamish: Indeed. And I imagine they won't be in a hurry to end the Session so long as they've got business of their own, legslative business that they want to complete.

But, uh, I think Spring is what we've been told, and people would be surprised if it went beyond that.

Ruth Fox: I don't even think two days on Report Stage would be enough. Because the rule of thumb is usually half the number of days in Committee, isn't it? So you'd be looking, if it's 12 days in Committee, you'd be looking at roughly six days, roughly six days on Report.

So, you know, the problem just gets bigger.

Mark D'Arcy: Yes. Yes. The, you need an infinitely extending parliamentary Session to cope with the debating demands here.

Sir David Beamish: Yeah, I mean that's certainly the rule of thumb. Half, because there are [00:34:00] restrictions, you're not supposed to go over the same ground on Report as in Committee and you can only speak once and and those sort of things. So it should go quicker. But it would still need, as Ruth suggests, I think rather more than two days.

Ruth Fox: And you would have votes. Whereas at Committee Stage we're not seeing votes.

Sir David Beamish: Well, we aren't so far, which is interesting because we rarely see votes with Government bills for various good sometimes tactical reasons.

That's to say people will say they want to hear what the Ministers or read what the Minister has said carefully, and think how far the points been answered or perhaps improve their amendment. Whereas here where its sort of matters of principle, it's less obvious that that approach applies. And you'd think if you thought you were going to win, it might make sense to have the division straight away if there's nothing to go away and think about.

But no, we haven't seen that yet. The first three amendments have all been withdrawn.

Mark D'Arcy: Now, filibustering is something that parliamentarians are not supposed to do, but occasionally do, do, [00:35:00] which is to speak individuals to speak at great length, use up all the debating time, try and prevent a question being put.

This isn't technically speaking a filibuster in the sense that you haven't had a few very long speeches, but what you have had is a vast number, as we've been saying, a, a vast number of amendments, all of which have to be debated. Is this, in your view, a legitimate or illegitimate development? I mean, is is this just a, a, a more cunning way of having a kind of meta filibuster?

Sir David Beamish: So far, I don't think it's illegitimate. They've been discussing important points of principles. The amendments do get grouped, although only one group was covered today, technically one amendment, but there were about 20 or 15 amendments in the group, which when they're reached would be expected not to be moved rather than repeat the debate. This is an important Bill bringing in something very new that needs safeguards. You can understand that Members who are anxious about, in particular, people being pressured into [00:36:00] an early death, want to make jolly sure that the Bill is fit for the statute book before it gets there.

Ruth Fox: I mean last week on the, the first day in Committee, they essentially covered two broad subjects. The first was about devolution in the application of this Bill in Wales when the Welsh Parliament has already voted against assisted dying and how that was going to work. So there were some really important constitutional issues addressed in that discussion.

And the second subject was this question of mental capacity and whether or not it ought to be a question of ability rather than capacity in the, in the Bill. Again, an important distinction in law and indeed for medical practice. So really serious issues that were being drilled down into in intricate detail.

These are just complex issues that are going to take time

Sir David Beamish: And a lot of members are, are interested in them.

Ruth Fox: Yeah, and have expertise.

Sir David Beamish: Amendments don't just come from a small group. I think there are nearly 70 different members who've put their names to amendments. So it's obviously attracted a lot of interest and for Friday, sitting [00:37:00] they are getting good attendances.

Mark D'Arcy: One of the things that came up when we were speaking to the Bills promoter, Lord Falconer last week, was that he thought it would be outright unconstitutional for the House of Lords to either block his bill by procedural means by running out of time to debate it in, or worse still, actually vote it down.

What's your view?

Sir David Beamish: I think I'd say it's not necessarily, because I've talked about the desire for thorough scrutiny, and I don't think it's unconstitutional to give it that thorough scrutiny. Um, it's up to others whether the time could be found to allow that to happen. As regards voting it down, I think it would be tactically unwise. But if you look at the history of the powers of the House of Lords from 1911, an arrangement was introduced by the Parliament Act so that a bill that the Commons wanted, could get through but with a power of delay. That delay was reduced in 1949. That was a Labour government [00:38:00] change. So it's slightly ironic that it was first used under a Conservative Government for the War Crimes Act in 1991, where a lot of members in the Lords were seriously against retrospectively making conduct criminal that hadn't previously been.

So there is a sort of formal setup limiting the powers of the Lords and to say it's got to go further. As I say, tactically it might be unwise in terms of the future of the Lords, but I don't think you can call it unconstitutional. As a revising chamber, they want to make sure things are done properly.

Mark D'Arcy: The Parliament Acts have hardly ever been used in recent years to force bills through, and there's talk that it may be that they are used to force this bill through.

It's a Private Member's Bill. So I think the Parliament Act was drawn up very much with with Government legislation in mind. It's never been done with a Private Member's Bill, can it be done with a Private Member's Bill?

Sir David Beamish: Yeah, basically it's about Commons bills that come up to the Lords. So any public bill, uh, and this is a, despite being a Private Member's Bill, a public bill, it could be done too. Incidentally, [00:39:00] there's a good reason why the Parliament Act procedure is rarely used. Typically any point of difference is on a limited part of a bill and the Government would rather get 95% of what it wants this Session than have to wait many months and take up more Parliament time to get the other one through. But I think an important limitation here is that the way it works is that the Bill has to be sent up again in the second Session, in the same form as it was sent up in the first Session, barring any necessary changes because of the lapse of time.

And nobody thinks that the Bill as it left the Commons was the one they want to see on the statute book. But that's what they'd have to send up if they wanted to take advantage of the Parliament Act procedure.

Ruth Fox: It would also presumably have to be a Government bill because otherwise it would go as a Private Member's Bill. And you'd have all the problems of navigating it through the Private Members Bill procedures in the Commons. And, and frankly, unless you're coming top of the ballot again and the person who comes top agrees to take it on, it would be very difficult. So there are some real time constraints. And you're back then to the question of [00:40:00] government neutrality. We're in this position because Keir Starmer gave a commitment to Esther Rantzen that there'd be a vote on assisted dying in, in this Parliament. And the government's position is that it's neutral and therefore it wouldn't be a government bill.

Sir David Beamish: You make a hugely important point, which is, isn't so to speak my specialism..

But, um, uh, the fact, the fact that you can't just bring a Private Member's bill through all its Common stages without, uh, winning a place in the ballot or whatever, does mean that the approach I've described is probably a non-starter.

Ruth Fox: I mean, I suppose one theory is you could bring it as a Presentation Bill and try and steer it through, but again, I don't see how that would happen without Government support and active government, uh, provision of time for it.

Mark D'Arcy: And while I think behind the scenes in the Commons, the Government actually did quite a lot to make sure that obstacles didn't pop up in front of this bill, particularly in the way it sort of manipulated the batting order of other Private Members Bills to make sure that the way was clear for this one.

And I don't think the Government will want to take too public a position in favour of it. This is, uh, to quote, Jim Hacker, " an issue on which the [00:41:00] Government's hoping not to have a public opinion."

Sir David Beamish: One can understand why they might wish not to be in that position. Indeed. Yeah.

Ruth Fox: And the other, of course, constraint is in the Lords, that the Government's own legislative programme is taking longer than they might have hoped.

And there's so many days at Committee and Report Stage on their own bills.

Mark D'Arcy: A lot of ping-pong on the employment bill for example. Yeah.

Ruth Fox: That it's, it's taking time. So I imagine that the position of the Chief Whip and Leader of the House in the Lords is we don't want to give any commitments or make any provisions for this Bill in the New year at the moment, because we don't know how things are going to lie in terms of our own legislative programme.

And that will be their priority.

Sir David Beamish: As it should be. Yes, I'm sure you're right.

Yeah.

Mark D'Arcy: So I suppose we've got two more scheduled Committee days to go. Things might, I suppose, pick up. The pace might improve, but even so it looks like the Government's going to have some difficult scheduling decisions to make. What should we be watching out for David?

Sir David Beamish: Gosh. Something dramatic I'm tempted to say. If we just have on day three, something similar to today, [00:42:00] when maybe only one or two groups get dealt with, then it's hard to see, you know, without something dramatic, where this is going to go.

Ruth Fox: Yeah. So we look out for the Chief Whip making a statement at the Dispatch Box at the end of day three, or the beginning of day four, I guess.

Sir David Beamish: Or even the beginning of day three. Yes.

Mark D'Arcy: So watch this space. David Beamish. Thanks very much indeed for joining us on the podcast. My pleasure.

Ruth Fox: Thanks David.

And we're back. And Mark, one of the less well-known organs of the Westminster Parliament is the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly, or PPA for short, as it's known now. This is the child of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement with the EU that was signed after Brexit, a chance for the two sets of parliamentarians to influence the post-divorce settlement.

It's what's known at Westminster as an inter-parliamentary delegation, and each side provides 35 members. So the UK ones include Peers as well as MPs. There's got to be a double majority, a majority on both sides for them to agree any recommendations to the [00:43:00] Partnership Council, which is the ministerial body, which oversees the relationship.

Mark D'Arcy: So how's that relationship improved since the post Brexit nadir in the days of Boris Johnson and his Europe minister, Lord Frost? Well, we spoke to the two delegation leaders, Sandro Gozi, a French MEP, and the Labour MP Marsha de Cordova. We began by asking her what the Assembly had actually been discussing this week.

Marsha de Cordova MP: The areas that we covered were quite important actually. We were looking at issues around AI and digital cooperation. We were looking at the creative and cultural exchange, as well as foreign and security cooperation, and we open out the planary session with a state of play, so where things are at. Obviously this is the first time the Assembly has met since the May Summit where the Common Understanding was formed. So it was quite an important session for us, and I'm sure my Co-chair would agree with me that it was a, it's been a really positive Assembly. This is the sixth PPA, but it's the first one in London under a new government. And [00:44:00] so the whole vibe has changed because this Government are seeking to rebuild and reset its relationship with the EU. And that's what it's been doing for the past 18 months.

Mark D'Arcy: And for the listeners, the Common Understanding?

Marsha de Cordova MP: It's the agreement between the UK and the EU that is focusing on specific areas. So looking at obviously food standards, looking at youth experience as well as issues around security and defence.

Mark D'Arcy: Sandro, welcome to the pod. And, could you tell us what happens to these discussions? What happens to the thoughts that come out of them? Do you go back to the European Parliament and start quizzing EU Commissioners or start feeding into European Parliament committees about what comes out of this Assembly meeting?

Sandro Gozi MEP: Yeah. First of all, let me agree with my, co-chair on the success of this, uh, meeting in London. It was very important because it was the first one at parliamentary level after the 19th of May Summit, which really paved the way to a new, uh, phase of bilateral [00:45:00] partnership. And also, let me emphasise the strong attendance of the EU side. After all, we are 35 full members and out of 35, 26, made the trip and came to London for two days. This sign for members whose constituency is not here in London or England or UK signed off, I mean a strong commitment. And what we are doing, we will discuss these, issues in the different committees which are responsible for food insecurity, youth opportunity, Erasmus, cultural tourism, and also we have a contact group within the European Union where we are regularly exchange with our Commission and mainly with Maros Sefcovic with the responsible Commissioner for our bilateral relationship with the UK. So for us, between one meeting of the Assembly and the other meeting, there is a lot of work of follow up and of preparation.

Ruth Fox: This is one of a number of inter parliamentary delegations that both the Westminster and the European [00:46:00] Parliament have. Is it just a, a jolly, is it a talking shop? Do you actually have any influence?

Marsha de Cordova MP: Well, it's certainly not a jolly, but it's absolutely meaningful. I mean, as you know, the inception of the PPA was born out of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, the TCA, and that's really how it was founded. And it really is about providing opportunity to scrutinise that agreement, but also for an exchange of views. And that's exactly what we've done. And as my Co-chair has already alluded to, you know, it has been such a positive, um, Assembly meeting that we've had and actually we've passed a recommendation that was overwhelmingly supported and that, that will then obviously translate into being shared with the Commission as well as with the UK Government also. And you ask my Co-chair about engagement, and it isn't just at our level, it's also, I mean, this is the parliamentary level, but obviously at Government and the Commission level as well, because they are very engaged. I mean, we had the minister responsible for all the Europe [00:47:00] negotiations present at the Assembly yesterday and today.

We also had the UK government representation as well, where we were talking about really important issues around touring artists and the whole idea around creative and cultural exchanges as well as the situation with Artificial Intelligence. So from my perspective, I wouldn't have chosen to be part of the delegation if it wasn't going to be meaningful and wanting to seek to bring about change, but also trying to influence Government as well because that's what we have to seek to do in these, these arenas.

You know, it's about exchanging views and coming up with ideas that we then we can certainly feed back and also make recommendations and try and push them in the right direction on issues that we have a common agreement and understanding on.

Mark D'Arcy: Sandro, where should we be looking for progress for tangible signs that this Assembly is delivering change, delivering a better relationship?

Sandro Gozi MEP: First of all, let me say that it is very important to have a parliamentary dimension because I think that we set the legislative [00:48:00] framework and we insist on the issue in which we want to see the cooperation moving ahead. And for the executive, it's very difficult to get out of this issue once that we have set them in a clear strategy framework.

I think that if you look, you look at the, our last request in March and the first summit at executive level, we must now progress, swiftly on food and security standard because that is a major obstacle in our trade. And, to remove this obstacle, we make a clear difference to both consumers and businesses, especially small and medium businesses.

And we have to show what are the concrete benefit is certainly important. Our new rules on the carbon emissions, which are very similar between EU and UK, what technically we call ETS emission trade scheme, that, I mean to promote a convergence and I mean. to eliminate possible obstacle and divers on that, that is also very important.

And we have a, [00:49:00] a war in the continent. We have global challenges. So I mean, moving ahead on the security agenda and building up of European defence industry together between UK and EU is something on which we must make a difference very soon.

Mark D'Arcy: One of the surprises, I suppose, for people when this Assembly was created was that it ends up having to talk quite a lot about defence and security issues, which presumably wasn't something that people were much envisaging would be a major part of your work at the start of things.

Marsha de Cordova MP: Well, I suppose nobody could have foresaw Russian's barbaric invasion of, of the Ukraine and where we are years into that war and the impact that that has had.

But what it also demonstrated is how the UK government under our Prime Minister is working alongside his European partners in having that coalition of the willing, in wanting to seek to make sure that we are supporting Ukraine in whatever ways possibly that we all can. And I think that just demonstrates, whilst the UK may have [00:50:00] left the European Union, we are still very much seeing them as our key allies.

Ruth Fox: Can I ask you about the visibility of the assemblies work in your respective Parliament? So Marsha, how engaged are your parliamentary colleagues who are not members of the Assembly? How aware are they of the work? Do they know that this is happening this week? You know, how do you now go back next week in terms of parliamentary business and try and spread the word and and influence the debate.

Marsha de Cordova MP: Interestingly, it is not just incumbent upon me because obviously there are 35 members of the UK delegation. That's cross party members as well, from both Houses, the Commons and the Lords. And there's huge engagement from the delegates. But naturally we feed back. Many from the Lords, for example, are on the European Committee, so they will obviously feed back through those channels. And from my perspective as well, it's also feeding back through the different committees, in the Commons as well. And where there's alignment on issues, particularly on whether it's foreign affairs or it's in Defra, you know, you want to make sure that those committees are [00:51:00] aware of what, of the work that we're doing. But primarily as well, you also want to ensure that the government, they are fully abreast of what we're doing, but also wanting to try and influence them, as well. But I can't stress enough, we just had the sixth PPA meeting and it was such a positive space to be in.

But also, you know, we've only had two under a Labour government, and I think if you speak to anyone that was on it under the previous iteration, they will definitely say that there has been a shift. And that's because the relationship from our perspective is about rebuilding and resetting. And I think that is born through and that's what everybody is kind of on board with, and that's how we're kind of going to be moving forward in that positive vein.

Mark D'Arcy: Sandro, from, from your side, how does the rebuilding and resetting look? Because there, there was a pretty frosty period in UK-EU relations. To put it gently, no pun intended. Has there been a thaw from all that frost?

Sandro Gozi MEP: It was very frosty, as you say. [00:52:00] And I will say, Mr. Frost is, finding himself in a splendid isolation in this new phase, which is very good for UK and for the EU I believe.

But that is my personal take of course. Naturally. I think that the UK has left the EU but hasn't left Europe, and I don't think that UK wants to leave Europe. I think that UK wants to continue to be a key actor in Europe on the new technology, on innovation, on competitiveness, on security, on defence.

And this is what we are doing. And in the European Parliament, we are convinced that we have a common interest in keeping our relationship a special relationship. And I mean, we can say whatever we want, but UK will never be a simple non-EU member. It won't be a simple third country because, when you have shared an history and we have shared I think, 50 years of common membership, you cannot erase all these, not even with the [00:53:00] democratic decisions in a referendum. So I mean, we have a strong interest in looking at the future and, moving ahead together.

Mark D'Arcy: And might this take the form of the UK rejoining Erasmus or Culture Europe, getting a foothold in the new European defence cooperation?

Marsha de Cordova MP: Well, we certainly on the latter of that, around defence cooperation. Absolutely. But as well with, Erasmus, I think we absolutely want to make sure that we are signed up and part of that, and I believe that those steps are being taken for that to happen with all the negotiations. So I feel that where we are in, in terms of the UK and what we are seeking to achieve is having that more closer alignment and closer relationship with our European friends. And, and that is happening from a defence level. But also if you think about some of the social stuff around youth opportunities and things like Erasmus. Look at food standards, we want kind of wanna be more aligned on that. We want to be more aligned around energy because the positives from that when it comes to things like energy that would result in people having lower energy bills, right? If we get things around food [00:54:00] standards, right, that will hopefully will see the lowering of food prices and who benefits, that's my constituents. It's the consumers here. So there's mutual benefits to all of that. And you know, that is why I think we should really be kind of, not negative about the process so far and where things are at, but see it as a real positive step forward because we, you know, since May, we have seen the UK and our friends in Europe come out with a, a good understanding and now we're at a stage where, where they are negotiating on these areas that I've just mentioned. And, you know, I'm hoping progress will be made soon. I would like things done yesterday, but that's because of who I, who I am. And I know that that's not possible, but I think we are absolutely moving in the right direction.

Ruth Fox: So the Assembly meets twice a year for two days each time. Once in Brussels, once in Westminster. But we say a week is a long time in politics, so six months is an eternity. And obviously there's an enormous amount of things going on. Next year you've got the formal review for the Trade and Cooperation Agreement. So what happens [00:55:00] between those six months as chairs? Are you in contact a lot? Are you helping the discussions along the way, feeding in to the Commission, to the Parliaments?

Sandro Gozi MEP: Yes. We are in regular contact. We hold regular meetings of what we call the Bureau. So I mean the six members, which are the key members to, make, to push in the machine ahead. There are two co-chairs Marsha de Cordova and myself, and there are two vice-chairs from the UK side and two vice-chairs from the EU side.

So we've got a team of six members of the two parliaments who are in charge, to work together and to prepare, to ensure the follow up of one Assembly meeting and to prepare the next Assembly meeting. There are many members who would like to meet, more frequently. We will see in the future what it is feasible.

Certainly, I mean, so far, so good. And in, within the European Parliament we meet every month. So the members of the Parliamentary Assembly meet every month to discuss, to deepen this or that subject on our [00:56:00] bilateral relationship. And also the issue of EU-UK relationship is an horizontal issue, discussed the Trade Committee in the Internal Market committee in the Foreign Affairs Committee, with always the participation of the members of the EU-UK delegation.

So for us it's a constant commitment. I repeat, so far so good. The attendance is very high. The quality of the exhanges are very high. So we see whether in the future we can intensify also the frequency of our meetings.

Marsha de Cordova MP: I think just to, to kind of reiterate what Sandra has said, delegates would like to have more engagement and, and so, you know, that's something that we have to be attuned to and would like to see happening, as well because there is so much happening, and it's everything is fast moving, so we want to make sure that we're kind of lockstep in tune with all of that as well.

Mark D'Arcy: What's the next big thing?

Marsha de Cordova MP: Obviously, you know, I, I totally want to see some movement around touring artists and that cultural space. There are so many benefits, not just to us, but obviously to Europe as well. So I want to see some [00:57:00] movement on that.

Mark D'Arcy: And Sandro, this is an issue really that is almost a generic one for the UK-EU relationship, that having left the EU, it seems that the UK is now sort of plucking at the European Union and saying, we want little bits of the relationship back.

Sandro Gozi MEP: No, I mean, the period of, uh, cherry picking is over. Also because I mean, the UK government has made clear choice. I mean, uh, not the single market and not the custom union. So there is a very, very little left to cherry pick, uh, honestly. But there is a, a lot of things to do together, and I think that this is what we have to do.

I mean, and we have full exploit the potential of this trading corporation agreement, which, uh, is after all one of the most advanced trade agreement we have in the worldwide. And there is a lot of potential to exploit. And there is also a cooperation and agenda, which must be enriched, as Marsha said, taking into account the reality of today's war.

So security, artificial intelligence, these are all issues on which we must [00:58:00] intensify our cooperation, and that they didn't look so important even three years ago. And now they are the centre of the agenda. So this is also the importance of the parliamentary dimension. We are freer to enrich the agenda with the issue, which really matters to the people. And after all, we are there to represent the people also when we meet together in the Parliamentary Assembly.

Ruth Fox: Just a question to finish. I think with, Marsha, and this is a bit of an indulgence for us. We, we discuss restoration and renewal a lot on the podcast. We are talking about Artificial Intelligence and we're in a, a legislative body at a Parliament that was essentially rebuilt in the mid 18 hundreds and has, shall we say, a lot of problems.

How easy is it to host an Assembly of this size, 70 members plus all the staff and so on, in this? And when we're sitting in committee rooms, they're quite large but not large enough. Wouldn't we be better somewhere that has got 21st century conference facilities?

Marsha de Cordova MP: Oh, you are cheeky.

Ruth Fox: [00:59:00] Have I touched a nerve?

Marsha de Cordova MP: No, no, no. You certainly haven't touched a nerve. I mean, look, I have to say, I think hats off to the whole team and the, the secretariat that have prepared the spaces that we've been using for this Assembly. We've been in one of the larger committee rooms and for me, I think we are very blessed to be meeting in the Palace of Westminster. The world knows it as the mother of all Parliaments. So isn't it an incredible backdrop to be meeting here? But obviously, practically, it can present its challenges and we've obviously, as you know, there's a lot to be done. But would I change it? No, I think it's awesome that we've got our colleagues, 27 of them along with all the, the team and staff that came with them that came to visit Parliament, some of them for the first time.

And we should never underestimate the joys that we get and the privilege that we have of calling place, our workplace. It's an incredible space. Yes, we could want bigger rooms and all the rest of it, but I wouldn't change it.

[01:00:00]

Mark D'Arcy: And Sandro, how have you enjoyed your sojourn in Westminster this week?

Sandro Gozi MEP: I've been here several times in my different capacities. But I can assure you that if we had held our meeting in a nice, modern, technologically advanced conference centre, most of my colleagues would've been very disappointed, because they're very happy to be here in this historical building for parliamentary history, worldwide.

Marsha de Cordova MP: Can't underestimate that. You, you really, you really can't. But your point is taken, you know, there's many conference centres and stuff that you can use, but let's not be shy about showing off our Parliament.

Mark D'Arcy: Sandro, Marsha, thanks very much indeed for joining us on the pod today.

Thank you.

Marsha de Cordova MP: Ah, well, thanks. Thanks for having me.

Mark D'Arcy: And Ruth, just picking up on that point about R&R - restoration and renewal - it's been reported that the long awaited vote on how Parliament should be restored has been delayed yet again. My old BBC Parliament colleague Esther Weber, has spotted yet another postponement of a crucial, even [01:01:00] critical decision.

Ruth Fox: Yeah, essentially, um, they seem to be taking a bet that Parliament is not going to burn down over the next few years, or there's not going to be a catastrophic...

Mark D'Arcy: Burn down, fall down, flood, whatever. Yeah.

Ruth Fox: Yeah. This goes back to the budget. Money is not available. Whatever model and whatever approach they take, we know it's going to cost multi-billions of pounds, but the longer it goes on, the worse it gets. The numbers go up, they don't go down. They're already spending significant sums of money every week in a sort of patch and mend affair to keep the place going. That apparently is, is going up a little bit to.

Mark D'Arcy: And there are fire patrols, nightly and that kind of thing.

Ruth Fox: Yeah. And we said I think a few months ago on the podcast, we didn't think that there would be a vote by the end of this year. I'd be very, very doubtful that it would happen precisely because of the financial position that the Government finds itself in.

Mark D'Arcy: And in fairness to the Government, you know, you aren't talking very, very, very large amounts of money here. And it's very difficult in an era of deep austerity, 'cause that's what it is, to justify finding billions to [01:02:00] restore the parliamentary buildings.

But if they're not restored, something happens, they could go the way of Notre Dame. They could fall down, they could flood all sorts of really unpleasant, unpalatable options. And this is one of the most recognisable buildings on the planet, as I keep saying.

Ruth Fox: Well, and that was the point, wasn't it, that both Marsha and Sandro were, were making when we, we met with them.

That, although from my perspective, and I think from a lot of the staff's perspective, it's not an ideal position to be having this big inter parliamentary delegation of 70 members plus staff, plus translators and so on in the Palace because the rooms aren't big enough. They're sort of crammed in.

The weather has been quite benign up until now for this visit. But I mean, a couple of years ago when the EU delegation was here, it was cold in the middle of winter and you know, they were, people

Mark D'Arcy: Wearing their coats were committee.

Ruth Fox: People were wearing coats in the committee rooms and there were real problems. And it's not a good look. I understand the attraction of the building, I understand the history, I understand why visiting delegations like to see it and therefore, you know, it is [01:03:00] preferable to a normal conference venue. But from a practical perspective, there are some real issues. But of course, if there had been an emergency or if something had happened in the middle of that meeting, it would've been terribly embarrassing.

And as I said, I think they are taking a very big bet on the future of, of the building, given all the warnings that they have been given. So if we're at a situation now where. 10, 15 years on after many, many reports, after lots of investigations, after an Act of Parliament was passed that was supposed to be sorting out governance arrangements for this and, and fixing it to enable them to do the work free of political interference. That Act has now been tossed out and, and replaced, and we're back to political decision making by both Houses through a, a new governance model. And yet we keep coming back to the fact it doesn't matter what the governance model is, if the money's not there and the Treasury's not going to authorise the money, the work isn't going to happen.

Mark D'Arcy: And it looks that that's where we are now. So there may be some kind of vote about something a bit later on, but who knows what, if anything, [01:04:00] MPs will be allowed to decide on. And in the meantime, it's a matter, as you say, of of hoping that disaster doesn't strike.

But I do hope that Members of Parliament give a bit of attention to one thought, which is what happens if that disaster does strike? What happens if the building somehow becomes unusable because the electrics have gone, or whatever it is, and they have to decamp somewhere else at short notice, because that is a significant possibility here. And just as we were talking earlier about MPs needing to think about how they cope with, uh, another Covid pandemic or something like that, they also have to consider how they cope with having suddenly at short notice to find a new home for their debates.

Ruth Fox: And essentially, I think that's the, that's the question now. What are the alternatives? If they're not going to do the, the full restoration and renewal or anything like it, then what is the emergency plan? What is, is there a contingency plan for a viable alternative location for both Houses if a catastrophic event happens in the next couple of years?

Mark D'Arcy: There's presumably some kind of short term contingency plan that for a few weeks they might be able to sit in somewhere like [01:05:00] the QE II Conference Center

Ruth Fox: Or Church House or something.

Mark D'Arcy: Church House is the other obvious alternative. Church House was, was where Parliament sat for a lot of the time after the Chamber was bombed out during the Second World War. So it's an obvious option for them to take. Even that raises logistical problems about getting MPs from offices scattered around Westminster into a different debating chamber, which may take them longer to get to.

Ruth Fox: But we know the situation is deteriorating. We know that the costs are going up for patch and mend. At some point, somebody has to say, okay, if we're not going to fund a proper restoration of the building, then what is the plan? And simply carrying on with your head in the sand - yes, doing the patch and mend works and so on, fine - but fundamentally, your head in the sand about the future of our national legislature in a building that has been recognised as being at serious risk.

They need to come up with an answer. And if they're not going to restore the building, they're not going to spend the money. Then what other options are there? Do they need to revisit the prospect of another location? [01:06:00]

Mark D'Arcy: Mm. Well, it's certainly an important question, and I do wonder what the various unions and staff associations well in Westminster might, might think about this as well.

Because, uh, from a health and safety point of view, they, they may be getting increasingly twitchy about the state of the building they work in.

Ruth Fox: And they would be quite right to. I do think you, you, you are running the risk now, I think that the prospect of the trade unions might well be sort of looking ahead and thinking, you know, at some point for health and safety reasons, as a workplace, it wouldn't be tolerated. Some of the things that go on just would not be tolerated in another workplace. And yet they are in our national legislature. And at some point would not surprise me if the unions make a decision to strike.

Mark D'Arcy: And with that jolly thought, Ruth, shall we call it a day for this podcast?

Yeah, let's. See you next week, Mark.

Bye-Bye.

Bye.

Outro: Parliament Matters is produced by the Hansard Society and supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust. For more information, visit hansardsociety.org.uk/PM or find us on social media [01:07:00] @HansardSociety.

← Back to Parliament Matters episode page