Lord David Cameron should be questioned by MPs in Commons, committee suggests

Published

1 year ago

January 24, 2024

admin

Lord David Cameron should be questioned by MPs in the House of Commons, according to a report from the chamber’s procedure committee.

Questions about how elected politicians could hold the appointed foreign secretary account have abounded since he was given the job by Rishi Sunak in November 2023.

The procedure committee, which is made up of 17 MPs, most of whom are Conservatives, began looking into the matter almost straight away.

Politics latest:
Senior Tory calls on Sunak to quit as PM

The committee has now recommended that Lord Cameron should be able to be questioned by MPs in the Commons, after concerns he would not be able to answer questions from politicians representing the public, especially at a time with various foreign crises.

But, much as having a senior minister in the Lords is somewhat reminiscent of a bygone era, the proposal put forward still refuses to break some parliamentary traditions.

The committee says that Lord Cameron should answer questions not from the despatch box, as MPs do, but from an area of the Commons chamber known as the bar.

This is a white line – and sometimes a physical bar – that marks the official entry of the chamber, and which guests and visitors cannot go past.

The report notes that up until the early 1800s, it was common for many witnesses, including lords, to give evidence from the bar.

This included the likes of First Lord of the Admiralty Lord Melville in 1805 and the Duke of Wellington in 1814.

But this became less popular with the advent of select committees. The last non-MP to appear at the bar was journalist John Junor in 1957, who was asked to apologise for an article he had written.

In the examples in the 19th century, peers were given a chair to sit on, but had to stand when answering questions.

The committee suggested this plan of action, as having ministers in the Lords use the despatch box like an MP “would risk blurring the boundaries between the two Houses”.

It also rejected ideas like having Lord Cameron answer questions in other parts of parliament, for example committee rooms or Westminster Hall, as they are too small.

These venues would have limited the number of MPs able to question Lord Cameron – and the committee believes “it is important that all MPs can participate in scrutiny of Lords secretaries of state”.

They added that the scrutinising of Lord Cameron should take place as often as all other secretaries of state.

Alex Burghart, who is a junior minister in the Cabinet Office, told the committee that having lords appear in the Commons may lead to the normalisation of senior ministers being appointed in the lords – and maybe even prime ministers.

Normally, ministers in the Lords are only junior in their department.

As such, the committee made clear in its recommendations that the suggestions for Lord Cameron “are aimed at addressing the issue the house is currently faced with and should not set a precedent for the future”.

The Lords would need to vote to allow Lord Cameron to appear in the Commons, and the committee suggested that MPs vote on a motion allowing him to appear in their chamber until the next election.

As part of their report, the Committee invited all MPs to submit evidence.

They received 131 responses.

Of these, 88.5% wanted secretaries of state in the Lords to be more accountable to the Commons.

The most popular venue suggested by these MPs was select committees – 69.4% – followed by Westminster Hall – 68.5% – and then the Commons – 63.9%.

More than half (53.3%) wanted Lord Cameron to appear every month, while 32.4% thought he should answer questions only when needed for specific business.

In the additional comments section, various MPs said secretaries of state or those in senior government roles should not sit in the Lords.

However, some MPs seemed less keen on MPs asking questions of Lord Cameron – saying that Andrew Mitchell, who is a junior Foreign Office minister in the Commons, can do a good enough job.

They also raised concerns about the separation of the two houses.

And one MP wrote: “This is none of our business – which is why you have had nearly zero response.”

Click to subscribe to the Sky News Daily wherever you get your podcasts

Dame Karen Bradley, chair of the procedure committee, said: “As elected representatives, members of the House of Commons have a duty to question the foreign secretary. This is especially pressing in light of the crises in the Middle East and Ukraine.

“The committee has considered various mechanisms of scrutiny and taken the views of members, while bearing in mind the practicalities of each proposal.

“We have ultimately concluded that all MPs should be afforded the opportunity to question secretaries of state who sit in the House of Lords, with the Commons chamber providing the best forum to do so.

“We hope the government implements our proposals as quickly as possible, so that MPs can best scrutinise all secretaries of state on behalf of their constituents.”

A government spokesperson said: “We will carefully consider the committee’s report and will respond in due course.”

Politics

Musk’s government-efficiency blockchain: What could go wrong and what could go right?

Published

4 hours ago

April 2, 2025

admin

Musk’s government-efficiency blockchain: What could go wrong and what could go right?

Opinion by: James Strudwick, executive director, Starknet Foundation

The outlook surrounding the use of new technologies has shifted in Washington. Tesla CEO and presidential adviser Elon Musk’s proposition to incorporate blockchain technology into the US Treasury has placed blockchain and its use for state finances at the forefront of the global debate. According to Musk, much of this drive is rooted in the concern over the unsustainability of current government spending. With its immutable ledgers and transparent audit trails, blockchain is waiting in the wind, offering a potential solution to managing vast public finances.

Musk advocates for a unified information system that can track real-time payments, credentials and government resources, spurring a debate within the fintech community about the pros and cons of introducing such a tool at the government level. The idea is compelling, as the description on the blockchain tin effectively promises accountability, traceability and streamlined operations. The shift here, namely to a blockchain-powered government infrastructure, presents several challenges that may prove to be beyond what the new administration has expected thus far.

Blockchain as state appendage

A concern for stakeholders orbiting the blockchain world revolves around the sheer scale of government operations. Every day, the US government handles thousands of transactions across various departments. The feasibility of Musk’s vision is put into question simply as a result of its own complexity. The provable security that blockchain technology must offer while handling millions of daily transactions without buckling under the load to succeed at this scale is enormous.

A proposed solution by Musk is a hybrid model that uses “Validium” zero-knowledge rollups. The speed and efficiency of modern ZK-rollups, which can handle hundreds of millions of transactions daily, have the potential to make sure each citizen’s share of government transactions is intact and verifiable. The technology’s rapidly evolving nature, scaling to handle even higher transaction volumes in the coming years, indicates that this could be achievable.

Unfortunately, this in itself comes with its own hurdles, particularly when integrating public services, which tend to operate in silos.

The human question

The great irony here is that Musk’s declarations of government inefficiency as a reason for the ongoing shakeups could be one of the biggest reasons not to go ahead with the plan. The real obstacle here is not so much technological as it is deeply, irrevocably human. The transition from archaic legacy systems to the more modern infrastructure of blockchain requires not just software updates but an entire reprogramming of the workforce. Government employees embedded in bureaucracy are used to outdated systems, and retraining them will be no small task.

Recent: US housing dept mulls blockchain, stablecoin to pay and monitor grants: Report

Moreover, current government databases are a labyrinth of poorly documented, indecipherable data. Extracting and migrating this data to a blockchain infrastructure is itself a task that may require serious investment. For all its elegance, blockchain wasn’t built to contend with such inefficiency. Despite its potential for handling complex, distributed environments, the difficulties present in the system itself could make the transition more complicated than the hassle is worth.

Balancing transparency and confidentiality

Transparency of federal spending is also a factor worth highlighting. The innate strength of blockchain and its much-lauded appeal is its strength. It permits citizens to track how public funds are allocated and spent. Musk’s premise could foster a so-far unseen level of accountability, which makes transactions, every delegation of power and every resource distribution visible to the public in real-time.

The problem is that sensitive government data, classified information or personal identification could be dangerously exposed on a public blockchain. Musk’s response is to try to tether sensitive data to private channels in the blockchain and ensure that only individuals with the appropriate authorization or from specific departments can access confidential information. Theoretically, this addresses the security concern while allowing blockchain’s public verifiability.

Musk’s offer could lead to a more efficient, accountable system. The social drive behind this is the longstanding criticism of wasted spending and resource misallocation. There is also a possibility of strengthening democratic processes by holding public officials more accountable. A decentralized authority has the broader impact of empowering citizens through real-time access.

There is a forward-thinking aspect to the vision. It raises a profound question. Technology could address human governance challenges, but we run the risk of a fundamental shift in how we understand privacy and accountable authority. As we question the nature of governance, it warrants careful consideration of the role of blockchain and what it could ultimately mean for the future of society as a whole.

Opinion by: James Strudwick, executive director, Starknet Foundation.

This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal or investment advice. The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.

Politics

UK preparing for ‘all eventualities’ ahead of Trump tariffs, Starmer says

Published

4 hours ago

April 2, 2025

admin

UK preparing for 'all eventualities' ahead of Trump tariffs, Starmer says

Sir Keir Starmer has said the government has been preparing “for all eventualities” ahead of Donald Trump announcing global tariffs later on Wednesday.

The US president is set to announce details of fresh tariffs on imports into the US after he said all countries will be targeted in his bid to “rebalance” trade agreements.

Mr Trump is expected to announce 20% tariffs on most US imports on what he has called “Liberation Day”.

Politics latest: PM admits ‘pressures bearing down on businesses and working people’

Sir Keir told Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs): “We’ve been preparing for all eventualities ahead of the confirmation of US tariffs later today.

“Let me be clear with the House: a trade war is in nobody’s interest, and the country deserves, and we will take, a calm, pragmatic approach.

“That is why constructive talks are progressing to agree a wider economic prosperity deal with the US.”

He said the government is working with all industries and sectors in the UK that are likely to be impacted.

The prime minister added his government “will rule nothing out” as he again hinted at retaliatory tariffs.

However, he said he believes the UK’s interests are “best served by calmly trying to secure a deal”.

On Monday, Sir Keir told Sky News political editor Beth Rigby US-UK trade talks are “well advanced” and “rapid progress” had been made.

However, he admitted it is likely “there will be tariffs” as negotiators had not managed to fend them off in time.

At PMQs, Sir Keir rejected jumping into a trade war with the US, saying: “That cannot be the first response of the United Kingdom.”

The impact of potential retaliatory tariffs from the EU on Northern Ireland was also raised, with DUP MP Gavin Robinson reminding the prime minister not to forget the unique trade situation in Northern Ireland.

He said while exports from Northern Ireland are UK exports, imports to the country could be hit by tariffs imposed by the EU as it shares a border with the European bloc.

The Belfast East MP asked whether government trade teams are attempting to exempt Northern Ireland from any EU action.

Sir Keir reacted by saying what is needed is to be “calm and pragmatic”.

He added the business secretary had spoken to the Northern Ireland government on Wednesday morning, “because this is a serious issue and we need to work together to resolve the interests of everybody in Northern Ireland”.

Last week, Mr Trump said he was open to carving out deals with countries seeking to avoid US tariffs, but those agreements would be negotiated after 2 April.

He previously said he “may give a lot of countries breaks, but it’s reciprocal”, adding: “We might be even nicer than that.”

Politics

More than 400 Sikh groups call on Starmer to launch ‘promised’ inquiry on Golden Temple massacre

Published

4 hours ago

April 2, 2025

admin

More than 400 Sikh groups call on Starmer to launch 'promised' inquiry on Golden Temple massacre

More than 400 Gurdwaras and Sikh organisations are calling on Sir Keir Starmer to launch an inquiry he promised into potential British involvement in the Golden Temple Massacre.

The groups have signed a letter that was sent to the prime minister urging him to follow through on a commitment made in 2022.

The calls relate to questions around what part the UK and British special forces played in the 1984 killings, in which hundreds of Sikhs died after the Indian military entered the temple complex where separatists had sought refuge.

Politics latest: PM admits ‘pressures’ as bills rise

In 2014, the UK government accidentally revealed Margaret Thatcher was aware of the Indian state’s intention to raid the temple and in the months before the raid, a British SAS officer provided advice to the Indian government.

A subsequent investigation commissioned by David Cameron found that a single officer provided advice – and there was “no evidence of UK government involvement in the operation itself”.

However, this investigation was criticised as a cover-up due to its limited scope and quick timeframe.

In 2022, Sir Keir wrote to all Gurdwaras and Sikh organisations, saying: “A future Labour government will open an independent inquiry into Britain’s military role in the Indian army’s 1984 raid on the Golden Temple in Amritsar. It is important that we are open, transparent and above reproach in understanding any role the UK may have played in such events.

“This is something I know is important to our Sikh communities here and throughout the world.”

However, an announcement on the inquiry is yet to materialise.

In the letter sent to the prime minister by the Sikh Federation, seen by Sky News, Sir Keir is told: “If what is eventually proposed by a Labour government fails to deliver the ‘truth’ as promised by you this will have massive political ramifications for the Sikh community’s support for Labour in future elections for many generations.”

The federation says an inquiry “must” be announced by 31 May.

In a letter to Labour MPs, the Sikh Federation also called on them to put pressure on the government to start an inquiry.

The organisation also said it had heard “extremely worrying rumours” that the Foreign, Commonwealth And Development Office has been under pressure from the Indian government to “avoid or limit” an independent inquiry.

It added: “Civil servants are understood to be advising that a public inquiry is expensive and could damage relations with India.”

The UK is currently trying to negotiate a new trade agreement with India in the wake of Brexit. Attempts by the Conservative government failed due to a difference in position over visas.

There is a campaign among some in the Sikh community for an independent nation to be established – known as Khalistan – out of parts of the Punjab region in northern India.