Connect with us

Published

on

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.

More on Conservatives

The House of Commons. Pic: UK Parliament/Jessica Taylor
Image:
The House of Commons bar can be seen as the white line in the foreground. Pic: UK Parliament/Jessica Taylor

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”.

Read more:
Cameron dismisses claims of ‘plot’ to return as Tory leader

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”.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Cameron’s shock return to frontline politics

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.”

Continue Reading

Politics

Economy will have to be ‘strong enough’ for U-turn on winter fuel, business secretary says

Published

on

By

Economy will have to be 'strong enough' for U-turn on winter fuel, business secretary says

The economy will have to be “strong enough” for the government to U-turn on winter fuel payment cuts, the business secretary has said.

Jonathan Reynolds, talking to Beth Rigby on the Electoral Dysfunction podcast, also said the public would have to “wait for the actual budget” to make an announcement on it.

Sir Keir Starmer said on Wednesday he would ease the cut to the winter fuel payment, which has been removed from more than 10 million pensioners this winter after it became means-tested.

He and his ministers had insisted they would stick to their guns on the policy, even just hours before Sir Keir revealed his change of heart at Prime Minister’s Questions.

But Mr Reynolds revealed there is more at play to be able to change the policy.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Winter fuel payment cuts to be reversed

“The economy has got to be strong enough to give you the capacity to make the kind of decisions people want us to see,” he said.

“We want people to know we’re listening.

“All the prime minister has said is ‘look, he’s listening, he’s aware of it.

“He wants a strong economy to be able to deliver for people.

“You’d have to wait for the actual budget to do that.”

Read more:
Gordon Brown suggests people on top income tax rate should be excluded from winter fuel

What are the options for winter fuel payments?

  • The Institute for Fiscal Studies has looked into the government’s options after Sir Keir Starmer said he is considering changes to the cut to winter fuel payment (WFP).
  • The government could make a complete U-turn on removing the payment from pensioners not claiming pension credit so they all receive it again.
  • There could be a higher eligibility threshold. Households not claiming pension credit could apply directly for the winter fuel payment, reporting their income and other circumstances.
  • Or, all pensioner households could claim it but those above a certain income level could do a self-assessment tax return to pay some of it back as a higher income tax charge. This could be like child benefit, where the repayment is based on the higher income member of the household.
  • Instead of reducing pension credit by £1 for every £1 of income, it could be withdrawn more slowly to entitle more households to it, and therefore WFP.
  • At the moment, WFP is paid to households but if it was paid to individuals the government could means-test each pensioner, rather than their household. This could be based on an individual’s income, which the government already records for tax purposes. Individuals who have a low income could get the payment, even if their spouse is high income. This would mean low income couples getting twice as much, whereas each eligible house currently gets the same.
  • Instead of just those receiving pension credit getting WFP, the government could extend it to pensioners who claim means-tested welfare for housing or council tax support. A total of 430,000 renting households would be eligible at a cost of about £100m a year.
  • Pensioners not on pension credit but receiving disability credits could get WFP, extending eligibility to 1.8m households in England and Scotland at a cost of about £500m a year.
  • Pensioners living in a band A-C property could be automatically entitled to WFP, affected just over half (6.3m).

Chancellor Rachel Reeves has committed to just one major fiscal event a year, meaning just one annual budget in the autumn.

Autumn budgets normally take place in October, with the last one at the end of the month.

If this year’s budget is around the same date it will leave little time for the extra winter fuel payments to be made as they are paid between November and December.

You can listen to the full interview on tomorrow’s Electoral Dysfunction podcast

Continue Reading

Politics

Semiconductor exemptions don’t matter when it comes to tariffs

Published

on

By

Semiconductor exemptions don’t matter when it comes to tariffs

Semiconductor exemptions don’t matter when it comes to tariffs

Opinion by: Ahmad Shadid of O.xyz

Semiconductors scored a rare exemption from US President Donald Trump’s aggressive reciprocal tariffs, but the relief is symbolic at best. Most semiconductors enter the US embedded in servers, GPUs, laptops, and smartphones. 

The finished goods remain heavily tariffed, some with duties reaching up to 49%. The exemption looks good politically but delivers little practical benefit. Nvidia’s DGX systems, crucial for training advanced AI models, do not fall under the exempted HTS codes. Nvidia could pay effective tariffs nearing 40% on these vital components. Such costs threaten to stall critical AI infrastructure projects across the country. 

Semiconductor tariffs may compromise the goal of the CHIPS Act. The act promised tens of billions of dollars in subsidies to support domestic chip manufacturing. Yet advanced lithography machines — key equipment from countries like the Netherlands and Japan — face 20%–24% tariffs. Ironically, tariffs designed to boost American production increase the cost of essential manufacturing equipment.

The effect of new tariffs is already slowing progress in critical supply chains — just as generative AI and large language models are gaining momentum across sectors like finance and defense. Any delays or cost increases now could blunt America’s technological advantage.

Indirect costs undermine exemptions for AI

Modern semiconductor supply chains are global and highly integrated. An exemption on raw silicon means nothing when servers, GPUs and other finished products face steep tariffs. Tariffs indirectly inflate costs, eliminating any competitive advantage from domestic manufacturing.

Indirect tariff costs hit high-end systems disproportionately hard. The effect ripples through AI model training, data center expansions and major infrastructure projects, significantly slowing the industry’s momentum.

Tariff impasse halts investment

So far, it’s clear that the US president’s tariff plan didn’t follow any conventional economic trends or calculated strategy. The uncertain tariff situation stalls investment decisions across the technology sector. Companies need predictable costs to justify large capital expenditures. Ongoing tariff volatility prevents them from committing resources to new data centers and manufacturing lines.

This mirrors the supply chain chaos of 2020. At that time, uncertainty caused massive order cancellations and slowed industry recovery for years. If tariff ambiguity continues, we could see similar waves of cancellations in 2025. This would further compound existing inventory and revenue issues in the semiconductor sector.

Domestic production is not optimal

The border argument for these tariffs is that they’re meant to boost domestic production. They do little, however, to encourage genuine domestic semiconductor production. Despite subsidies under the CHIPS Act, most US semiconductor companies still rely on international foundries for manufacturing. Instead, they face increased equipment and operational costs.

Recent: How trade wars impact stocks and crypto

The idea that tariffs promote domestic production ignores the reality of global semiconductor manufacturing. Costs rise across the board, putting American companies at a disadvantage rather than offering protection.

AI projects face heightened risk

The blockchain and crypto sectors, particularly AI-driven projects, also feel the pinch. Projects depend heavily on GPUs and high-performance servers for mining, validating transactions and running decentralized AI computations. Increased hardware costs directly affect profitability and growth, potentially stalling innovation in blockchain applications. 

AI developments have just started to pick up the pace in the blockchain and Web3 space. The industry saw increased interest from investors and VCs just a year ago. So, they are still on tighter budgets. Elevated costs can, however, lead to stagnation. We might see innovators and developers exiting the market. The ripple effect extends beyond the general technology sector and could threaten future digital economies. 

Moreover, these cost pressures disproportionately affect startups and smaller tech firms. Industry giants can absorb additional expenses, but innovative, smaller players face existential threats. This dynamic risks stifling innovation at the grassroots level, harming the entire tech ecosystem.

What to expect 

Semiconductors have momentarily escaped direct tariffs, but the exemption provides little benefit. Tariffs continue to hit finished products, driving up indirect costs across the industry. Instead of boosting domestic manufacturing, these tariffs create economic paralysis, stall critical infrastructure projects, and threaten America’s lead in AI innovation. Policymakers must acknowledge these realities and adjust their approach before irreversible damage is done to the nation’s technological future.

Opinion by: Ahmad Shadid of O.xyz.

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.

Continue Reading

Politics

US lawmaker introduces anti-corruption bill ahead of Trump’s dinner

Published

on

By

<div>US lawmaker introduces anti-corruption bill ahead of Trump's dinner</div>

<div>US lawmaker introduces anti-corruption bill ahead of Trump's dinner</div>

California Representative Maxine Waters, ranking member of the US House Financial Services Committee, has announced plans to introduce legislation “to block [Donald] Trump’s memecoin and stop his crypto corruption.”

In a May 22 notice, Rep. Waters said the Stop Trading, Retention, and Unfair Market Payoffs (TRUMP) in Crypto Act of 2025 bill would be aimed at blocking the US President, Vice President, members of Congress, and their families from engaging in “crypto crime.” The US lawmaker referred to Trump and his wife, Melania, issuing personal memecoins in January, his family launching a stablecoin, USD1, through the crypto platform World Liberty Financial, and the president attempting to establish a national Bitcoin (BTC) reserve as his sons back a BTC mining venture.

“Donald Trump is preparing to dine with the top donors of his memecoin who’ve made him, and his family, richer,” said Waters, adding:

“Trump’s crypto con is not just a scam to target investors. It’s also a dangerous backdoor for selling influence over American policies to the highest foreign bidder.”

Government, Donald Trump, Corruption, Memecoin
HR 3573, Stop TRUMP in Crypto Act of 2025, introduced by Rep. Maxine Waters. Source: House Financial Services Committee Democrats

Waters’ bill was one of many actions announced to oppose the president’s dinner to reward memecoin holders. Senators Chris Murphy and Elizabeth Warren are expected to attend a press event with representatives for the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, and two Democratic organizations will protest at the Trump National Golf Club outside Washington, DC, where the memecoin dinner will be held.

This is a developing story, and further information will be added as it becomes available.

Continue Reading

Trending