Parliament passed a law requiring the Government to spend 0.7% of Gross National Income on international aid. So, should Ministers be able to bypass that legal obligation through a ministerial statement? We discuss Labour MP Mike Amesbury’s suspended jail sentence and how a recall petition will be called if he doesn’t voluntarily step down. Plus, we explore the controversy surrounding the Product Safety and Metrology Bill, which Brexiteers warn could stealthily realign Britain with the EU while handing Ministers sweeping legislative powers.
Should MPs have a say on the Government’s decision to cut yet more from the UK’s international aid budget to fund increased defence spending? By law, the UK is committed to spending 0.7% of Gross National Income (GNI) on international aid. Yet this latest reduction does not have to be put to a vote in Parliament.
With aid spending now slashed to just 0.3% of GNI, could an upcoming Estimates Day debate on Foreign Office funding give MPs a chance to raise concerns about the decision? And with the aid budget shrinking, is it time to reconsider the role of the International Development Select Committee?
Meanwhile, Labour MP Mike Amesbury has had his 10-week jail sentence for assault suspended on appeal — but that may not be enough to save his Commons seat. As Ruth explains, an MP sentenced to jail — even with a suspended sentence — faces a recall petition. If 10% of voters in Runcorn and Helsby back his removal, the Government will be forced into a by-election, unless he voluntarily resigns his seat first.
Also in the spotlight: the Product Safety and Metrology Bill. Ministers are keen to reassure MPs about this seemingly technical legislation, but Brexiteers suspect it’s a Trojan Horse for creeping EU alignment. The bill is a framework of skeleton bill which contains sweeping powers, allowing ministers to legislate in the future with minimal parliamentary oversight. Ruth and Mark ponder why governments keep reaching for framework bills and Henry VIII powers and what it means for democracy.
Hansard Society
House of Commons Library
House of Lords
Please note, this transcript is automatically generated. There may consequently be minor errors and the text is not formatted according to our style guide. If you wish to reference or cite the transcript copy below, please first check against the audio version above.
[00:00:00] Intro: You are listening to Parliament Matters a Hansard Society production supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust. Learn more at hansardsociety.org.uk/pm.
[00:00:17] Ruth Fox: Welcome to Parliament Matters, the podcast about the institution at the heart of our democracy Parliament itself. I'm Ruth Fox.
[00:00:24] Mark D'Arcy: And I'm Mark D'Arcy. Coming up this week...
[00:00:27] Ruth Fox: A huge cut to overseas aid. How will it reverberate through the House of Commons?
[00:00:32] Mark D'Arcy: As an MP is convicted of assault and sentenced to 10 weeks in jail, will his voters be able to throw him out of Parliament?
[00:00:39] Ruth Fox: And is what sounds like a bland, technical piece of legislation in reality, a Trojan horse for rejoining the European single market?
[00:00:54] Mark D'Arcy: But first, Ruth, that big decision that the Government has just announced this week about cutting the overseas aid budget in order to transfer the money to defence and boost defence spending to meet the requirements of President Trump, and indeed to face the security threat from Russia, is something that is going to cause all kinds of ripples in Parliament.
[00:01:14] First of all, it is a mid-air change in Labour policy. This is a very substantial u-turn. It's not very long since the Foreign Secretary, David Lammy was criticising America's decision to gut its overseas aid budget. It was a manifesto promise of the Labour Party that they would maintain overseas aid spending and that's now been dropped.
[00:01:34] And indeed, they were heavily critical of the Conservatives when they reduced overseas aid, when Boris Johnson was Prime Minister. So it's an enormous reversal in policy, and I suppose you can argue circumstances have changed "bigly" since the Donald entered the White House, and it's clear that this is the line of least political resistance.
[00:01:56] Yeah. But is it still for all that a wise decision. To reduce aid that is propping up a lot of countries in, for example, sub-Saharan Africa, where refugees come from, who then cross the Mediterranean, get into Europe, and then attempt to cross the Channel into Britain. So is it a wise, long-term decision or one that might accelerate the kind of people movement that's at the root of a lot of political discontent in Europe already.
[00:02:21] Ruth Fox: Yeah. And of course that was the criticism that David Lammy was making just a few weeks ago about the decisions that the Americans have made about cuts to the U-S-A-I-D department, USAid. And it was a focus of a question that, um, Diane Abbott asked at Prime Minister's questions this week. I think it also raises, whether it's a wise question from a foreign policy perspective, whether it's a wise question from a humanitarian perspective, people have different views on that, and there are other better podcasts than us that can tackle that question.
[00:02:51] But I think from our perspective, in terms of what are the implications for Parliament, I mean, again, we've talked about this on the podcast before, Governments legislating to put targets, policy targets on the statute book, and then effectively finding circumstances change and they can't meet those targets. And that's what we've got here.
[00:03:08] So it's now, well just under a decade since the Government legislated to put 0.7% of aid spending into the statute book, and now for the second time a government is coming forward and saying, well, we're not going to meet that target. And it raises a question, similar to what we heard in 2020-21, when after Covid, Boris Johnson's government said that they weren't gonna be able to meet the target and were going to have to cut back to 0.5% in aid spending. If Parliament has agreed to this target, it has imposed through legislation a duty on the Government to meet that target, then is it free for the Government to just effectively throw that target out of the window and just declare that they're not going to meet it?
[00:03:51] Mark D'Arcy: Apparently, yes.
[00:03:52] Ruth Fox: Yeah. And back in 2021, that was the, the question that was asked by the late Lord Judge.
[00:03:56] Now, of course, sadly, sadly, died, uh, last year, but he asked the question, it's a sovereignty of Parliament question: can the Government expunge or suspend by ministerial statement, which is effectively what we had this week with the Prime Minister at the despatch box, a legal obligation or a duty that Parliament has imposed on the Government.
Use the links below to subscribe to the Hansard Society's Parliament Matters podcast on your preferred app, or search for 'Parliament Matters' on whichever podcasting service you use. If you are unable to find our podcast, please email us here.
In our latest ‘Whipping Yarn’, we talk with Simon Hart, former Conservative Chief Whip during Rishi Sunak’s Premiership. Hart opens up about his time in one of Westminster’s most demanding and discreet roles, chronicled in his new book, ‘Ungovernable: The Political Diaries of a Chief Whip’.
If a crisis or major national event occurs during a period when Parliament is adjourned, there are often demands from MPs, the media and the public for Parliament to be ‘recalled’. But the House of Commons Standing Orders stipulate that only Government Ministers - in reality, the Prime Minister - can ask the Speaker to recall the House. In recent years the House of Lords has generally been recalled at the same time as the House of Commons.
In response to the Modernisation Committee's call for views on 17 October 2024, we submitted evidence outlining key areas we believe the Committee should prioritise. Our submission recommended a focus on: strengthening legislative scrutiny, with particular emphasis on reforming the delegated legislation system; enhancing financial scrutiny, especially in relation to the Budget and the Estimates; addressing strategic gaps in parliamentary scrutiny; making more effective use of parliamentary time; and reviewing the Standing Orders, language and rituals of the House of Commons.
This briefing explains what to watch for during the Second Reading debate of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill on 29 November. It outlines the procedural and legislative issues that will come into play: the role of the Chair in managing the debate and how procedures such as the 'closure' and 'reasoned amendments' work. It looks ahead to the Committee and Report stage procedures that will apply if the Bill progresses beyond Second Reading. It also examines the government's responsibilities, such as providing a money resolution for the Bill and preparing an Impact Assessment, while addressing broader concerns about the adequacy of Private Members’ Bill procedures for scrutinising controversial issues.
In this ninth instalment of our special mini-podcast series, we continue to explore the latest developments in the progress of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, often referred to as the assisted dying bill. We are joined by Dr Marie Tidball MP to discuss the amendments she has secured for a Disability Advisory Board and an independent advocate for people with learning disabilities.
