Sunday with Niall Paterson Interview with Andrea Leadsom Leader of the House of Commons

ANY QUOTES USED MUST BE ATTRIBUTED TO SUNDAY WITH NIALL PATERSON, SKY NEWS

NIALL PATERSON: The government secured agreement from the EU27 on the terms of the Brexit transition deal this week but critics in the House of Commons and beyond claim that the deal came at too high a price. There is still much to be done of course between now and March next year and the person responsible for marshalling all the complex legislation through the House is here with me now. Andrea Leadsom, lovely to see you. I wonder if before we get on to the nitty-gritty of the parliamentary process, I wonder if we can speak very specifically about that which Kier Starmer is calling for today, Labour saying that they want a binding motion on the issue of the Northern Irish border, no infrastructure, no customs checks, no cameras. I mean there is a very real chance that they might succeed in that isn’t there?

ANDREA LEADSOM: Well certainly it is government policy, as it is for the European Commission and for the Republic of Ireland that there won’t be a hard border in Northern Ireland so I’m very supportive of the principle but of course what we are very much hoping is that we get this all-comprehensive free-trade agreement that means we won’t need that hard infrastructure.

NP: So you’d have no objection, a promise has been made – and I am not for one second suggesting that politicians occasionally break their promises – but you’d be happy for that vote to go ahead and in essence for the Labour party to drive that through?

ANDREA LEADSOM: Well we always look at all amendments that are brought forward. I haven’t seen an amendment, I’m not aware that Labour has actually tabled one.

NP: No, not yet.

ANDREA LEADSOM: But there have been many hundreds of amendments already to legislation in this parliamentary session and we look at them all very closely and we respond to them when we see what they’re all about.

NP: What’s your assessment of the arithmetic in the House of Commons at the moment? You know, there has been a delay to the Trade Bill, any vote right now appears to stand on something of a knife edge, if not in favour of the Opposition benches.

ANDREA LEADSOM: Actually that’s really not true, we’ve actually passed a huge amount of legislation. There has been a lot of agreement particularly on some of our domestic legislation, we had the Energy Price Cap second reading went through without a vote, lots of legislation is passing because all parties are agreed on it. Obviously where the Brexit legislation is concerned there are disagreements but we have worked really carefully, I mean on the EU Withdrawal Bill in the Commons we had something like 370 amendments and in the end virtually every single part of that Bill went through the Commons with the government winning the day. Only in one small area did the government lose a vote so it’s just not true to say that we can’t win our votes, we absolutely are, the evidence is there every day.

NP: But isn’t it fair to say that certain votes have been delayed whilst you try to get some of your more recalcitrant back benches onside?

ANDREA LEADSOM: No, again, this is a story that’s put out but actually very often there are some significant stops, waits, between second readings and report stage in the Commons or indeed in the Lords, particularly where there are constitutional issues. There can be some weeks that take place whilst different areas are thought about, whilst consultation take place – these aren’t delays, they’re just the proper passage of legislation and we’re making sure we get it all through as we need to.

NP: There have been defeats in the Lords, many suggest that there will certainly be defeats in the House of Commons. I was wondering, as Leader of the House how have you felt when the government has failed to force a division on Opposition Day Debates, in essence refusing to vote? Take the Public Sector Pay debate just as an example, do you still maintain that those votes are purely political?

ANDREA LEADSOM: Well obviously the House debates a huge range of subjects and particularly on Opposition Days there is a political angle because the Opposition want to make a point whereas we also discuss serious important topics on Back Bench Days, on other days where we don’t necessarily vote but what we’ve specifically done on Opposition Days is where we’ve decided not to vote, we do then have a statement to the House on exactly what the government has done to address the concerns of the House where a vote has been effectively passed without a division. So it’s not that when we don’t vote it is therefore not passed, it’s that it goes by without a division and there we do respond.

NP: When you have those situations without a division, I mean you don’t for example have a situation like under the last Labour government, Gordon Brown lost the vote on the Ghurkhas and that affected a chance in government policy, I mean that’s one thing we’re not seeing at the moment.

ANDREA LEADSOM: Well except that that kind of suggests it’s only a vote that can make government chance where in reality, when we have Opposition Day debates Ministers, usually the Secretary of State, will be in the Chamber for at least part of the debate, senior Ministers will be there listening, they’ll be responding to points made right across the House. Actually it’s the quality of the debate that really does help to inform government policy.

NP: Just to return to Brexit, I mean the allegations in the Observer today that electoral law may have been broken, evidence may have been destroyed, too much money spent – I mean what do you make of it?

ANDREA LEADSOM: Well it is obviously a matter for the Electoral Commission, it is very important that they do look at these issues. I know that there have been a number of investigations already where there haven’t been findings of wrongdoing.

NP: Aren’t you worried that the legitimacy of the result may be in doubt as a result of all of this, if the allegations are shown to be true?

ANDREA LEADSOM: Well I think we need to wait for the Electoral Commission to have its investigation and, as I say, I believe there have been two previous investigations that have not found evidence of wrongdoing so these things are incredibly important but they really not a matter for me, they are a matter for the Electoral Commission.

NP: There is an aspect of this story however that does come very close to the work that you have been heavily involved in, dealing with harassment and bullying in the House of Commons. Shahmir Sanni who worked for the BeLeave campaign is the Observer’s source and he is gay. Now that’s something that not many people would have known about including members of his family but for this statement from this former partner who is Theresa May’s political secretary, Stephen Parkinson, put out by Downing Street. “We began a personal relationship, we subsequently dated for 18 months splitting up, I thought amicably. I can understand if the lines became blurred for him.” What possible justification is there for outing someone in this fashion?

ANDREA LEADSOM: Well, you know, I think this is an incredibly difficult area and I know that Stephen Parkinson has put out a statement further explaining that because of the very serious allegations of effectively electoral corruption, that it’s very important to understand the context and …

NP: He outed his former partner and that must stick in your craw.

ANDREA LEADSOM: Well I think it’s extremely difficult and I’m sure this discussion will continue but nevertheless it is also important in all matters of getting to the bottom of allegations that the context is understood.

NP: But this was done basically on Number 10 headed notepaper. What would happen if a Member of Parliament outed a member of their office staff in this fashion?

ANDREA LEADSOM: I think this is an area where I have been absolutely clear, we have to ensure that people are able to work in a safe environment where they are treated with dignity and respect and the working group that I’ve been chairing for the Prime Minister is creating a new independent Complaints and Grievance procedure that will be accessible to everybody who works in or with parliament so it would be an independent complaints procedure that would investigate such a complaint of, you give the example, a Member of Parliament outing a member of their staff but I do understand what you are saying, this is a very difficult area and of course, as I say, Stephen Parkinson has said the reason for his statement was because the context of the background of these allegations is very important.

NP: True but at the very least there should be an investigation under the Code of Conduct governing Special Advisors shouldn’t there?

ANDREA LEADSOM: Well that is, that is obviously a matter for others to decide, that’s not something …

NP: What’s your view?

ANDREA LEADSOM: Well my view is that I can understand where there are very serious allegations being made that it is important that the context of those allegations is also understood and as we know unfortunately in all areas of life where there is a personal relationship between individuals, that can sometimes have a bearing on either the accusations that come out later or indeed on a breakdown of relationship so that context is important but as to the detail of it, I am just not aware of the details so I’m afraid I just can’t comment on it.

NP: There has once again been an allegation of anti-Semitism directed at the Labour Leader’s Office again this week, your colleague Sajid Javid has said that he wants to see a debate on anti-Semitism in the House of Commons. As the individual responsible, what’s going to happen?

ANDREA LEADSOM: Well I mean obviously you’ll accept that I announce future business at Business Questions every Thursday so I wouldn’t be making a statement here right now but I absolutely agree with Sajid that we do need to take this issue very seriously. One of our very good Labour colleagues Luciana Berger, I know has had a huge amount of problem with anti-Semitism. It is totally, utterly unacceptable so I am very sympathetic to the call for a debate on it and I’m certainly hoping to make some progress on it if I can put it like that.

NP: I don't know, I might be watching the House of Commons round about Thursday perhaps. Angela Leadsom, many thanks for joining us.

ANDREA LEADSOM: Thank you.