The business secretary, Kwasi Kwarteng, has avoided scrutiny by MPs on the UK phase out of fossil fuels.
The minister failed to attend the Environmental Audit Committee this afternoon, giving no reason or apology.
He is the third cabinet member to pull out of an attendance at a parliamentary committee this month.
Mr Kwarteng wrote to the committee chair, Philip Dunne, this morning to say he could no longer appear at the meeting.
He offered to rearrange his appearance for the autumn – though he may not be in post when the new prime minister is appointed.
Mr Dunne tweeted that Mr Kwarteng had agreed to appear before the committee on 13 June 2022, adding:
“This is not the way for senior Ministers to treat scrutiny”.
In Britain's biggest energy price crisis since the 1970s, @beisgovuk SoS @KwasiKwarteng writes to pull out of today's important evidence session, having agreed to it on *13 June*.
— Environmental Audit Committee (@CommonsEAC) July 20, 2022
He gives no explanation nor apology. This is not the way for senior Ministers to treat scrutiny. pic.twitter.com/I3ZPu2Fb5k
DrillOrDrop asked Mr Kwarteng’s department why the secretary of state had failed to attend. A spokesperson for BEIS said:
“Ministerial diaries are always subject to change and unforeseen urgent issues. We have asked the committee to find an alternative time at its earliest convenience once the House returns.
“Since becoming a BEIS minister, the Secretary of State has appeared before parliamentary committees on 16 occasions, including twice before the Environmental Audit Committee.”
Earlier this month, the home secretary, Priti Patel, and the justice secretary, Dominic Raab, pulled out of committee hearings.
DRILL OR DROP? 
Tories are not fit for purpose, I bet he still gets paid for his time avoiding the tricky questions.
Yes, he does Jono. Maybe he found that there were other priorities that were more about progress than process. If so, good for him-that is their purpose.
The High Court has just criticised the government for a lack of transparency and a failure to put matters before parliament. This high handed attitude is not about progress or purpose, it is called scrutiny and accountability and is the bedrock of a healthy democracy.
And, doesn’t take priority necessarily, KatT. Without knowing why the Minister was absent you speculate and get close to fabrication. You state high handed attitude, yet you have no proof that it is. You have manufactured to suit your agenda. I am disappointed you would join in this ever growing trend of stating something is fact when it is merely speculation.
They are now breaking up for summer recess. When they return, a new government will be in place, with probably a new business secretary. Surely in these circumstances, government is in effect in lockdown, save any critical political development. To expect a committee hearing to have any value whatsoever in these circumstances seems pretty naive to me. These green activists need to grow up and understand basic political procedure.
basic political procedure.?
You mean partying while people died , lies , fraud , corruption and possibly being a risk to National security? Those things that obviously take priority over everything else . The Tories couldn’t run a bath let alone a country.
Oh dear Jono!
[Edited by moderator]
You mean the running of the country through the largest pandemic in living memory-SUCCESSFULLY? More successfully than most other countries. Yet, a few short months later and memories are supposed to have faded already.
Churchill didn’t live on powdered egg whilst people died. But that was when people were interested in progress over process. (Took someone then to say sod the process, I want progress.) Then UK became renowned as the Whinging Poms, and now via the Internet that has been magnified many times over. That is the process, I do not see it as progress.
I agree with Terri. The Minister wrote and explained other matters required his attention. Thank goodness someone in politics is following normal commercial practice within the Westminster Bubble. Heaven forbid, something might get done as a result. Perhaps a new nuclear power station to support those unreliable renewables? Just like the one announced yesterday!
Martin, we do not live in the Churchill age any longer , the government did not successfully take us through the pandemic, they illegally discharged elderly folk from hospitals back to care homes where many died. they gave BS contracts for PPE to their chums only to find that it was useless , they flaunted their own rules and laughed while they lied about it .
You just follow the narrative and repeat Tory propaganda but worst of all, you believe it’s true,
https://labour.org.uk/press/michael-gove-helped-his-personal-donor-david-meller-get-contracts-worth-almost-50-million/
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/covid-ppe-contract-conservative-donor-b1934073.html?amp
https://www.unison.org.uk/news/press-release/2022/04/high-court-rules-that-government-orders-to-discharge-untested-covid-patients-into-care-homes-was-illegal-says-unison/amp/
Oh dear Martin. To quote you, just to orientate readers you understand:
“ You mean the running of the country through the largest pandemic in living memory-SUCCESSFULLY? More successfully than most other countries. Yet, a few short months later and memories are supposed to have faded already.”
So this is Martin’s version of part of recent history!
I suggest you look at an alternative version, Martin, taken from the Edward Docx article “The clown king: how Boris Johnson made it by playing the fool.” Just ‘Google’ this title.
“And so, at the last, we come to death. Which even the clown cannot toy with or mock. The figures are stark – 126,000 dead at the time of writing. In terms of total numbers, the four countries above us have much greater populations – the US, Brazil, Mexico and India. We have by far the highest death toll in Europe and the fourth highest death rate per million of the population in the world. There is no serious discussion that does not arrive at the conclusion that the UK has lost tens of thousands of men and women whose death was not inevitable. Not all of the losses are Johnson’s fault, but many of them are the direct result of his calls and his character. Research by Imperial College shows that up to 26,800 deaths could have been prevented had the first lockdown come just one week earlier. Then came the care homes disaster, the premature lifting of the first lockdown, the ignoring of Sage throughout September. And only a clown would begin the October announcement of a second lockdown with the phrase “good evening and apologies for disturbing your Saturday evening with more news of Covid” when the nation was already stiff with the legions of dead and had been waiting all day to hear from its leader. The run-up to Christmas was a catastrophe of mismanagement that all-too-inevitably became the January of 30,000 more people dead. Are we supposed to forget this legacy and “move on”? That is what Johnson is now tacitly suggesting. Like all storytellers, he knows the public remember endings, less so beginnings and seldom the middle. He did all he can, he says. He knows it’s not true, but that is what he is selling.”
Doesn’t quite merit “successfully”, even in capital letters, does it? This is of course just one of Johnson’s many “successes”. As you intimated, “a few short months later and memories are supposed to have faded already.”
As for the AWOL Ministers of Her Majesty’s Government – the ship, sorry, paddle boat, having sunk, the rats will of course flee.
I don’t want to get into the Iaith vs Martin epic but it would appear that the UK was fairly “average” for excess deaths, but please provide the data which supports the claim:
“We have by far the highest death toll in Europe and the fourth highest death rate per million of the population in the world.”
Presumably you are looking at “excess deaths”.
See links below:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1083605/rate-excess-deaths-covid-pandemic-select-countries/
Lower than Italy, Germany and Spain, above France.
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-deaths-tracker
44th in the world according to the Economist which is up to date.
Interesting facts, Paul.
I would re-iterate not all countries are equal with regard to controlling a pandemic. UK has some inherent problems that are obvious and numerous. Those problems are some of the joys of the UK and part of our open society. But when it comes to a pandemic the joy is also a problem. Glib talk about lock downs, yet the truck drivers keep on trucking into and out, initially without testing. Construction and other sectors continues. All with total adherence? Don’t make me laugh. Compare the UK to somewhere like Norway and one would not need too much knowledge of issues regarding viruses to recognize they are very different and outcomes are likely to be different. Animal populations also have inherent differences regarding control of viruses that are part of livestock management, and have been for a long time. Ironically, something like avian flu is almost impossible to control if chickens are free range.
I have yet to see any consideration of that within analyses, but I trust the enquiry just started will take that on board. Sweden did, rightly or wrongly, at the very start. It should be quite easy also to do a study comparing Alaska, and say, California. I would expect to see big differences in outcomes. New Zealand was held up as an example to the world, except New Zealand was really an example to other countries comparable to New Zealand, and there are not that many.
In other respects, the UK PPE self sufficiency is a bit of a oddity to me. It seems that UK now has capability to produce most of the PPE volumes required. What do the factories make when-hopefully-the volumes are not required? Munition factories ended up converted to consumer goods as the market for munitions decreased. I can’t really see that a UK PPE group of factories will be left twiddling their thumbs awaiting a call, so the same issue is likely to be there the next time.
Thanks for this, Paul. Sadly, I cannot provide Edward Docx’ data but am attempting to find them.
[Edited by moderator]
People were discharged at a time when testing was unavailable and hospitals were bursting. Care homes have ALWAYS accepted patients back into their care from hospitals where viruses are present. Many people who have relatives in care homes know that is what their relatives often insist on, many becoming really desperately stressed if it doesn’t. Many relatives will also push for their loved ones to be discharged wanting to avoid an infection being caught from within the hospital. Most care homes have facilities to isolate patients if they think it is required eg. a virus, other than Covid, was present within the hospital. Either the care homes were unsuccessful with their isolation, they didn’t do it at all, or infection into the care homes happened via another route-and there is data that supports that latter suggestion, with many staff working at more than one care home. And, as anyone who has been looking into care homes for a relative well knows there are huge differences in standards between them, although less than it was. Clapping for them doesn’t change that.
The percentage of PPE that was faulty was very small indeed, remarkably so under the circumstances. I don’t find anyone who was desperate for PPE who cared a fig about who it came from, or what it cost, as long as it was supplied and it worked. I even know of situations where some were so desperate supplies of NHS PPE were stolen. Back in Churchill’s day a version of Jono would be whinging that one tank broke down, within the regiment, and it was Lord somebody or other who owned the tank factory. Strangely, the loo cleaner might not have had a factory that could supply tanks. Good job someone was there pushing the progress and sod the process. The users needed the product not the paperwork.
Did people die who could have lived? Of course they did, and that is tragic. That is always the case in pandemics and in wars. Did people live who would have died without interventions? Many, many more. Were the interventions supplied in UK quicker, and more widely available than elsewhere? Yes, they were. Did they work? Yes, they did.
Do some “persons” try and play a political game with that? Oh yes they do, and shame on them. Same ones who claim moral superiority. Now, that may work with “interpretation” but not in my world-thankfully. I[edited by moderator] note that in today’s age if anyone wanted to construct a country where a pandemic would be really difficult to keep out and control, they would end up with? The UK! Not to do with the politicians but with the society that has been established through the wishes of the population. Many, many benefits from that, but controlling a pandemic is not one of them.
Anyway, Take Away Thursday beckons and I have to collect my sushi.
Just to take one of Martin’s fairy stories at random….
“ The percentage of PPE that was faulty was very small indeed, remarkably so under the circumstances. ” (Martin)
BMJ
“Surveys by staff representative organisations found that at least 30% of care workers, doctors, and nurses reported having insufficient PPE, even in high risk situations. The committee accused the Department of Health and Social Care of knowing too little about the experience of frontline staff, particularly those from ethnic minorities. A third of Black and Asian doctors reported experiencing PPE shortages, compared with 14% of white doctors.
Bypassing tender
The decision to prioritise hospitals meant that social care providers were left exposed by the lack of PPE, the report said. Some 25 000 patients were discharged to care homes from hospitals, some without being tested for covid-19, contributing significantly to deaths in care homes in the first wave. But while NHS trusts were provided with 80% of their estimated need for PPE, adult social care was given only 10% of its estimated need, the committee noted.”
Stick with the sushi Martin
I would stick to getting your facts correct, 1720, rather than trying to deflect when your own “facts” have been shown to be incorrect. [Edited by moderator]
And my comment was about FAULTY PPE. You quoted it! So, not only one attempt at deflection but a whole host.
Then, where was the testing that meant patients were not tested? Oh yes, there was almost none available, and the little that was, was allocated to other purposes! So, it COULDN’T happen, initially.
Absolutely typical activist waffle. Off on a tangent away from the original comment that they themselves quoted, in a vain attempt to try and make a point, even though it is a totally different one.
Let me re-iterate the facts:
There was a remarkably low percentage of faulty PPE, and at the start of the pandemic there was almost no testing available for showing whether someone was positive for Covid. So, with hospitals becoming stuffed with Covid patients there were to be no discharges? What a really practical suggestion. LOL. Just keep blowing into the balloon that was at bursting point! Hospitals had the unenviable job of trying to give the best care they could to all patients whilst being swamped with Covid patients. No discharges were no solution to that, exactly the opposite of a solution. Medical staff in hospitals were being re-allocated from routine treatment to dealing with Covid, so where was the care coming from? There was care available in the care homes, as that is where the patients had come from. No hospital discharges WITHOUT a Covid epidemic, are a very large problem to the NHS. Other patients were then stopped from entering hospital and as a result many will have had adverse outcomes. Why were they stopped? Perhaps it was to do with hospital capacity? None of it is ideal, but there is no ideal during a pandemic. There are few practical alternatives and it is no help after the event to “forget” that the capacity of hospitals was not an issue, probably the major one at the start of the pandemic, and that testing capacity was extremely limited and had to be allocated, initially to medical staff.
[Edited by moderator]