Forum Topic

The Speaker Rebukes Reeves

Sir Lindsay Hoyle has accused Chancellor Rachel Reeves of acting with “supreme discourtesy” towards MPs given her “premature disclosure” of Budget details.The Commons Speaker said it was “totally unacceptable to go around the world telling everybody” about “major” new policy announcements rather than giving the information first to MPs.Sir Lindsay also questioned whether MPs would need to bother attending the House to hear Ms Reeves deliver her first Budget on Wednesday, given “we’ll all have heard it” already.During a round of broadcast interviews while attending the International Monetary Fund meeting in Washington DC, Ms Reeves confirmed a technical change in the way she would measure progress against the target of managing debt.It is expected Ms Reeves will use the Budget to open the door for the Government to spend billions more on long-term infrastructure, such as replacing dilapidated buildings on the public sector estate.Sir Lindsay, making a statement, told the Commons: “In media interviews last week the Chancellor announced that she intended to introduce changes to the fiscal rules relating to the funding of day-to-day spending through tax receipts and to the measurement of the public debt.“These are major new policy announcements with significant and wide-ranging implications for the Government’s fiscal policy and for the public finances.“It is evident to me that this should therefore have been made in the first instance in this House and not to the world’s media.“This principle is clearly and unambiguously set out in paragraph 9.1 of the Ministerial Code. While this can hardly be described as a leak – the Chancellor herself gave interviews on the record and on camera – the premature disclosure of the contents of the Budget has always been regarded as a supreme discourtesy to the House.“Indeed, I still regard it as such.“I am very, very disappointed that the Chancellor expects the House to wait nearly a full week to hear her repeat these announcements in the Budget statement on Wednesday.”Sir Lindsay said he has “always defended” the right of MPs to be the first to hear major Government policy announcements, adding: “Ministers should expect to face proper, sustained scrutiny when these announcements are made from the elected Members of this House and not the American news channels.”He noted Treasury minister Darren Jones would be making a statement to the House on “fiscal rules” on Monday, adding: “Perhaps no coincidence.“Honourable members may be wondering how they’ll get a seat on Wednesday (for the Budget) – to be quite honest, the way it’s going you won’t need to, we’ll all have heard it. It’s not acceptable, I don’t want it to continue and I want to treat this House with the respect it deserves.”Sir Lindsay added: “It’s totally unacceptable to go around the world telling everybody rather than these Members. They were elected by the constituents of this country and they deserve to be treated better.”He went on to note Labour when in opposition complained about the previous Tory government behaving in a similar manner, adding: “Get your acts together, all sides, treat Members with respect.”

Sue Hammond ● 59d16 Comments

Ed, "Personally I would like a complete reform with members swearing to represent their constituents and not the King and a written constitution and HoC prices of food & booze for all!"Good ideas. The first would enable Sinn Fien to represent their constituents in Parliament. Not sure the food and booze prices would be sustainable; are MPs taxed for benefits in kind for those subsidies? A written constitution would be good but there are limitations and it can slow progress as has been highlighted by the US and Ireland.

Michael Ixer ● 57d

The HoC is nothing without it's traditions and protocol.He is of course quite right although it does seem out of proportion. However the speaker also lowered the relevance of the HoC when it came to the cease fire vote proposed by the SNP.Personally I would like a complete reform with members swearing to represent their constituents and not the King and a written constitution and HoC prices of food & booze for all!Sorry got carried away with the last bit :)

Ed Robinson ● 58d

Barbara,Perhaps reading her posts carefully may help understand what she meant.But it is also true to say that your posts were not adding substance to the thread.

Ivonne Holliday ● 58d

Sometimes couples even agree on things and might have the same view(s) - perhaps that's why they're a couple? But they can also have different opinions on some subjects ...

Michael Ixer ● 58d

Ivonne, what are Jane's thoughts on the subject. Jane hasn't actually contributed to the post.

Barbara Stevens ● 58d

Well I actually like cats, perhaps that's why I'm a catty person. But how many people will be able to feed them.

Barbara Stevens ● 58d

My post was in reply to Michael Brigo’ s complaint that people had voted for change and instead were getting the same old - . I just wanted to point out that Labour’s programme, which is really a continuation of the policies of the Conservatives under Rishi Sunak, only with even higher taxation and more state spending, justified by a lot of sanctimonious claptrap, is highly unlikely to bring about change for the better.The original topic of this thread, the government’s  failure to inform Parliament of the change to the fiscal rules which led to the Speaker’s rebuke, is merely a symptom of Labour’s dishonesty. In order to win the election Labour  promised that they would not increase taxation and would abide by strict fiscal rules on spending. They have broken both these promises. But in order to stifle the outcry of betrayal on Budget Day, Rachel Reeve’s team have leaked details in advance, hoping that people will have got used to  the changes which can then be treated as old news.I think the last sentence of ‘Animal Farm’ is a useful reminder to those who put their faith in any political party promising change:‘The creatures outside looked from pig to man and from man to pig and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.’

Steven Rose ● 58d

"That women can only make comments provided they are holding the hand of a man???????"Be gentle. This might be a cry of anguish from Ms Stevens?

David Ainsworth ● 58d

Hello Barbara,I hope you do not mind me saying so, but that was an unkind comment to make.And this is very catty of me, but do you really think that women do not have a brain of their own?  That women can only make comments provided they are holding the hand of a man???????

Ivonne Holliday ● 58d

No. Let’s keep the personal out of here. You too have many times complained that another contributor has high jacked your thread.

Jane Carter ● 58d

But Jane, are you repeating what Richard, has asked you to put on here.

Barbara Stevens ● 58d

This oft repeated message, eloquent as it is, has nothing to do with the speaker rebuking Rachel Reeves.There is an increasing tendency on the forum for contributors to ignore the heading and simply use the thread to repeat their own views on unrelated topics.

Jane Carter ● 58d

I am not sure what change Labour voters were hoping for. Taxing the rich in order to improve public services?  There are two problems with this. As regards tax increase, it is not easy to make sure they only fall on the rich. The proposal to impose VAT on independent schools is a good example, since it will make private schools unaffordable for parents of modest means. But more importantly there is a limit beyond which taxing the wealthy in society causes the tax take to fall. This is because the super rich can simply leave the country and move to other tax jurisdictions, which some of the non doms are already doing. But more generally entrepreneurs are discouraged from investing if they think their profits will largely go to the Chancellor, so growth is slowed and tax receipts decline. As regards public services, they are not necessarily improved by the mere injection of cash. Paying the doctors and the train drivers more without insisting on greater productivity, as Labour have done, is not going to h improve the service to the  public.Setting up sovereign wealth funds to create jobs in socially desirable projects? If such projects were viable, they wouldn’t need state subsidy  because entrepreneurs would want to invest in them.Fixing the NHS? It can’t be done with an increasingly ageing population as long as all treatment is free at the point of delivery. Wes Streeting  knows this but Labour (just like the Conservatives) are unwilling to desecrate the shrine of the NHS, supposedly the envy of the world, by bringing in some form of private insurance, as happens in Australia.More honest politicians? I don’t think any party has a monopoly of virtue. There are a few chancers in every party. The only difference I can see is that Labour, who like to see themselves as engaged on a moral crusade, are more sanctimonious and by the same token more hypocritical, as demonstrated by the freebies scandal.Stopping illegal migration? Does anyone believe that Labour, having rejected the deterrent of the Rwanda scheme, has a hope of ‘smashing the smuggling gangs’?

Steven Rose ● 58d

As every previous government has done for years.That doesnt make it right obviously, it's infuriating that Labour don't recognise that people voted for change, not more of the same old sh1t that we had from the Tories.

Michael Brigo ● 59d

Today Rachel Reeves told Shelagh Fogarty in the course of an interview on LBC that she didn’t intend to ‘speculate’ about what would or would not be in the Budget. This seems disingenuous given that her team have for some days deliberately leaked details of the Budget, such as the proposed increase in employers’ contributions to National Insurance.

Steven Rose ● 59d

Bravo Sir Lindsay Hoyle!!!I totally agree with him, including his last paragraph.

Ivonne Holliday ● 59d