Rolling coverage of all the day’s political developments as they happen, including William Hague’s speech on English votes for English laws (Evel) and the Commons debate on mitochondrial transfer
Jane Ellison says the regulations would allow the two techniques used in mitochondrial transfer.
Ellison pays tribute to the work of the Lily Foundation, which supports those who have lost children to mitochondrial disease.
Ellison says scientists in Britain are leading the way in this technology.
Robert Flello, a Labour MP, says pioneering work on this has been done in China. That led the Chinese to ban these procedures, he says.
Jane Ellison, the health minister, is opening the debate.
She explains why mitochondria do.
The debate is about to start.
But, before it does, David Burrowes, a Conservative, makes a point of order to ask why just 90 minutes has been set aside for the debate.
MPs will soon start their debate on whether to change the law to allow mitochondrial transfer.
Here’s the Guardian’s preview story. And here’s how it starts.
MPs will vote on Tuesday in a historic Commons debate that could see Britain become the first country in the world to permit IVF babies being created using biological material from three different people.
Health ministers have indicated they believe mitochondrial donation to stop genetic disease being passed on to babies is an “important scientific advance that holds out great hope for families in this country and around the world”.
There’s no hiding the fact that what William Hague has come forward with today is not what his backbenchers were expecting. David Cameron has played fast and loose with the future of the United Kingdom ever since his speech just minutes after the referendum result. As the party of the Union, only Labour will devolve real power and resources from Whitehall to all parts of England and only a Labour government will be in a position to deliver the change we need for the whole of the United Kingdom.
The mayor of London is right to set himself apart from the prime minister and make it clear he finds it disappointing when firms do not join the overwhelming majority of British businesses in making a fair contribution to the Exchequer. Rather than playing party politics on this issue, it would be welcome if the prime minister and chancellor joined the mayor and us in presenting a united front on this issue.
It is absolutely right that companies that enjoy the benefits of operating in the UK must pay their full and fair share of taxes on the profits that they make in the UK. The government has made important changes in this area, most recently in the autumn statement with the diverted profits tax, which is specifically designed to deal with multi-national companies that may seek to use artificial structures to divert profits away from the jurisdiction in which those profits are made.
It is a free vote. The prime minister is a strong supporter of this and I would expect him to vote in favour of the change.
My colleague Nicholas Watt has written a good feature about the Conservatives’ election campaign. It’s just been launched and you can read it here.
The SNP and Plaid Cymru are both arguing that William Hague’s English votes for English laws (Evel) proposals reinforce the case for further devolution.
Until income tax - for example - is devolved in full, it is illogical and wrong for anyone to carve Scottish MPs out of important decision making
Paradoxically William Hague has actually made the case today for full fiscal devolution - where Scotland takes full responsibility for growing the economy, and not this half way house which offers minimal economic powers while resulting in a loss of voting rights.
In principle, Plaid Cymru is supportive of English Votes for English Laws, but these reforms must not come about in isolation.
We have long argued for all nations of the UK to be treated on the basis of equality - both in terms of funding and powers.
Ukip says Hague’s Evel plan will bring ‘chaos’
It is likely that after the General Election there will be more SNP members of parliament sitting in Westminster whose concern will be Scotland and not what is best for England. In that situation these plans would add layers of process and confusion to legislating and lead to back room deals being made far away from the voters eyes.
Why are the Tories are climbing down for English only votes? Is there already a back room stitch-up?
Taking questions after his speech, William Hague hinted that English votes for English laws would be a priority in any possible coalition talks after the election.
Hague hints Evel will be priority in coalition negotiations -- PM "feels very strongly" about topic + will pursue in "any" circumstances.
Here’s an extract from his article.
To appreciate the problem, consider the following scenario. Labour, with a majority in the UK as a whole but not in England, propose a law to restrict bin collections to once a month. English MPs could block such a law from applying to England. But if the Conservatives, with a majority of English MPs, then tried to introduce a Bill guaranteeing weekly bin collections in England, Labour would be allowed to use its UK-wide majority, including Scottish and Welsh MPs, to vote the law down – even though it would not affect those MPs’ constituents. In short, England would still not be self-governing.
This isn’t a fantasy scenario – Labour are openly hostile to the idea of true English Votes on English Laws, a hostility born of the fact that it would deny them powers which they would otherwise use. The SNP and Plaid Cymru have made clear that they intend to vote on English matters such as health in future. Hague’s proposal would leave them the opportunity to do so.
William Hague has has now delivered his English votes for English laws speech. It is not available online yet, but I’ve seen the text. Here are the key points.
First, the control of the detail of legislation and an effective veto are essential to giving real effect to English Votes for English Laws. With such procedures in place any government will know it cannot impose legislation on England without taking full account of the views of a majority of MPs from England.
The second is that it is an option that maintains the integrity of the United Kingdom Parliament. Parliament would continue to function with Members deliberating and voting together. Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs would continue to participate and vote at Second Reading, Report and Third Reading. But they would not be able to pass a motion concerning only England without the support of English Members. So crucially, this option enhances the Union, as Westminster will clearly remain a UK Parliament.
Nicola Sturgeon has said that it would be “perfectly legitimate” for SNP MPs to vote on English matters – even though English MPs have no say over corresponding matters in Scotland – and that through that they could “win big gains for Scotland.”
So if English Votes for English Laws is not implemented, there is the real prospect of England being held to ransom by the demands of the SNP or Scottish Labour MPs.
The Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail are both splashing on stories about business leaders attacking Labour.
In the Telegraph, business leaders accuse Ed Miliband of trying to shut down political debate.
Britain’s most senior business leaders have accused Ed Miliband of attempting to shut down debate of his policies ahead of the election by making “personal attacks” on his critics.
Sir Ian Cheshire, who ran the DIY chain B&Q, spoke out alongside a number of the country’s most respected business leaders after Mr Miliband rounded on Stefano Pessina, the chief executive of Boots, after he said a Labour Government would be a “catastrophe” for Britain.
The man who restored Marks & Spencer’s fortunes today accuses Ed Miliband of being a ‘1970s throwback’ who has wrecked Britain’s pro-business consensus.
Stuart Rose claims Labour’s ‘business-bashing’ could curb investment and lead to ‘shuttered shop fronts, empty high streets and lengthening dole queues’.
The reality is there’s going to be some issues in any society which become very divisive politically, and understandably. The level of taxation that you levy at any point of time, there will always be different views on that, and whether or not we should have a health service which is predominantly free or whether people pay. These are big political issues.There are always going to be some people in every community, including the business community, who take a political view.
There will be some identified Labour-supporting business people who take a Labour view, and there will be some Conservative-supporting business people who take a very Conservative view - and they might even end up becoming Conservative ministers or Conservative peers.
For the record, here are today’s YouGov GB polling figures.
Labour: 35%
Another Conservative MP, John Baron, has criticised William Hague’s English votes for English laws plans. Baron set out his objections in an article for politics.co.uk. Here’s an excerpt.
Evel is a separatist measure, regardless of the options. But at least Hague’s approach is the least separatist of all. It is the least divisive. I expect the SNP to be a separatist party – such is their raison d’être. But I don’t expect the Conservative and Unionist party to follow suit. Blocking all non-English MPs from voting on English-only matters would in particular play into the hands of the separatists.
We need a course of action which causes least harm, whilst we take time to explore ways of bringing the Union closer together. We need to remember that the vast majority of the people of our Union want to stay united. Pursuing policies which can be best exploited by the SNP is not the best way to serve that Union.
Bird flu has been found on a chicken farm in Hampshire. But it is just a “low severity” strain, the risk to public health is judged “very low” and there is no food risk, according to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Liz Truss, the environment secretary, made the announcement in a Commons written answer (pdf).
The chief veterinary officer has confirmed a case of avian flu in a chicken breeding farm in Hampshire. Tests have confirmed the case as a low severity H7 strain of the disease, a much less severe form than the H5N8 strain found at a Yorkshire duck farm in November; there are no links between the two cases. Initial laboratory results indicate that this is likely to be the H7N7 subtype.
The advice from Public Health England is that the risk to public health is very low, and the Food Standards Agency has said there is no food safety risk for consumers.
And here are tweets from a couple of commentators on the Hague plans.
From Anthony Painter from the RSA thinktank
Hague's suggested reforms- another small step on UK's journey from a majoritarian to consensual democracy. Can we go a bit quicker please?
#EVEL: at least 'veto' begins with the letter V, I guess. Otherwise, Hague's plan got little going for it. Over-promising. Under-delivering.
William Hague’s English votes for English laws plans are not universally popular in Tory circles.
Andrew Bridgen, a Conservative MP, told BBC News just now that, although the plans were “better than nothing”, they would create further problems. Bridgen wants pure English votes on English laws (ie, an outright ban on Scottish MPs voting on English matters). Bridgen said:
It is better than nothing, but it is not without its problems, and I think it will be exploited by Alex Salmond and the SNP to our detriment. You’ve got a Conservative party absolutely desperate to preserve the union with the best of intent, however I do not think we will appease the nationalists. We’ve had a very bad record of this and I think this will lead to big problems down the line which we will see.
I have no idea what Hague's English vote proposal means. He seems to have turned an election winning theme into a messy compromise #r4today
Boris Johnson’s comments about Boots and tax (see 10.29am) have gone down well with the Labour party. This is from a Labour source.
Boris Johnson has just joined criticism of tax avoidance by the Boots chief. Will the prime minister and the chancellor, who have spent so long posturing on this issue, do the same?
Boris Johnson had a couple of almost contradictory messages on his LBC phone-in. Weighing into the row about whether Stefano Pessina, the Boots boss, was entitled to attack Labour from his tax exile abroad, Johnson said he was. But then he came over a bit Ed Milibandish and said it would be nice if Boots paid a bit more tax in the UK.
Here are the main points.
I think the head of Boots is perfectly entitled to his view. I think too often, we have a lot of nervousness in great corporations about speaking out on political issues.
Capitalists typically will be wary of any kind of uncertainty. They won’t want to offend any politicians because they will be worried they may get in and start persecuting them, so I think it’s quite refreshing to see some tycoon actually saying what he thinks.
I have to say I find it disappointing that he does not cough up for Britain. That is my view ... I think it is a good thing if companies that earn great sums in Britain should pay their taxes in Britain. That is something I’ve said before in the case of many other companies.
Well, he is doing his best by the likes of his shareholders and by the interests of the company. These guys, I’m afraid, have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to minimise their obligations ... It is, in business terms, it is what he has to do.
It’s perfectly true that I was born in America. There was nothing I could do about it, I wanted to be close to my mother at the time and there she was. However, I haven’t lived there since I was five years old and, much though I admire America and admire and love American culture, I think my life and career is here in Britain and I want to see what more I can do here. The short answer is I live in Britain, I want to stick in Britain - this is my home, this is my country.
William Hague has been everywhere this morning.
William Hague has just done his 7th broadcast interview of the morning on "English Votes" #treadmill #timeforacuppa
If we’re proposing to change the level of health spending in England that does have an effect on Scotland, that is for all MPs to vote on. But if we’re voting on how to share out the health spending in England, that should require the agreement of the English members of parliament.
In an ideal world I would like to see this passed before the coming election so that it was ready for whatever the result of the election is. The other parties don’t support this proposal.
The Liberal Democrats have a different proposal of their own kind. The Labour party don’t want to talk about this at all. So it is unlikely that we’ll be unable to pass any such thing before the election, but this will be in the manifesto of the Conservative party in the coming general election. And the Conservative government will have as a very high priority bringing in these rules.
Boris Johnson is doing his LBC phone-in. He has just defended Stefano Pessina’s decision to move the Boots HQ out of the UK for tax purposes, saying he was doing his best for his shareholders, although, confusingly, he also said it would be nice if Boots did pay a bit more tax.
I’ll post the quotes soon.
#UKGENERALELECTION2015 93 DAYS TO GO
English votes for English laws is back. William Hague, the leader of the Commons, has firmed up the Conservative party’s plans and he will unveil them in a speech this morning. Here’s Patrick Wintour’s preview story. And here’s how it starts.
Scottish MPs at Westminster will be prevented from voting on income tax changes and any other tax measures devolved to the Scottish parliament under Conservative plans to be announced on Tuesday.
The plans – to be laid out in a speech by the Leader of the House, William Hague – will also give MPs representing constituencies south of the border a complete power of veto over laws that affect only their country, so giving Scottish MPs at Westminster merely a residual debating role on such laws. The proposals go further than anything adopted by the Conservatives before but Hague will argue that his reforms “are a fundamental matter of fairness” and are necessary to prevent the weakening of the United Kingdom.
Continue reading...
No comments:
Post a Comment