Oral Answers to Questions

James Wild Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Georgia Gould]

When our public services are facing so much strain and desperately need rebuilding, it is critical that we cut waste and deliver value for money. Under the last Government the procurement system too often failed to drive that efficiency, as was shown by the shocking levels of fraud and waste during the pandemic. We will bring new transparency to public sector procurement, along with a relentless focus on fraud.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

Gross spending on public procurement was £400 billion last year. What is the Government’s precise target for delivering greater savings from that budget?

[Georgia Gould]

That £400 billion is an enormous amount of money, and we need to ensure that it is going into growth, delivering for our communities and SMEs, and delivering on our missions. We are determined to act on procurement and reduce inefficiency, and we will provide further information about that in February. We cannot take lessons from the Conservative party about cutting waste inefficiencies, given that they oversaw gross mismanagement—Lord Agnew himself referred to “schoolboy errors”—in the delivery of procurement for this country.

Plan for Change: Milestones for Mission-led Government

James Wild Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Pat McFadden]

This is a hugely important problem for the country, because the current levels are not just bad for those waiting a long time for NHS treatment; they are also bad for the economy, because we have so many people in that position. That number has started to fall slightly since we came into office, but it will take a long and sustained effort and a combination of investment and reform. I am glad that we were able to announce the biggest increase in NHS funding since 2010 outside the pandemic period, but that has to be used in a way that gets waiting lists down, helps the people waiting for NHS treatment and, crucially, helps produce the economic growth and productivity we need. The truth is too many people are waiting in pain and too many people of working age are out of work on long-term sickness benefits, and we have to do something about both those things if we are to meet our economic growth targets and get the rising living standards we want to see.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

In the document, the Government have downgraded their pledge to have the fastest-growing economy in the G7 and junked their pledge to cut energy bills by £300, breaking two promises to the British people. Of the milestones they are keeping, who is accountable for each one, what are the detailed metrics, where are the implementation plans and will Ministers take responsibility if they fail to meet them?

[Pat McFadden]

If the hon. Member reads the document carefully, he will see that the growth target is very much in the document, but the document also says that it is not enough just to have economic growth; people have to feel it in their standard of living. That should be an important lesson for all of us in politics.

The hon. Member challenges me on accountability. Of course the targets are challenging, but let us look at the alternative. We were not prepared to carry on with the thinking that announcements were something real, with no real focus on delivery and driving the system. In case he has not noticed, there is a crisis of faith in politics out there. We have set out targets today that will make a real difference to people’s lives. I accept that they are challenging, but if we have fewer people waiting in pain, more people able to own their own home, safer streets and a better chance in life for children starting school, that is change worth having, and that is why we published the plan.

Ministerial Code: Policy Announcements

James Wild Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am afraid that trust was one of the many things that the Conservative Government destroyed over 14 years, and this Government are determined to rebuild it.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

The Chancellor, the Education Secretary, the Health Secretary and the Work and Pensions Secretary have all made significant announcements to the media and not to the House. Will those breaches of the ministerial code be investigated? Why has the Prime Minister not yet published an updated version of the ministerial code—are the Government still working out whether it is right to accept suits and glasses?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

We have already said that the Prime Minister will update the ministerial code and publish it shortly to ensure that it is fit for purpose, deals with problems such as the Tory freebie loophole, as I have said, and meets the high standards that the Prime Minister expects.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

James Wild Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 15th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

I begin by declaring an interest as my wife, the noble Baroness Evans of Bowes Park—although she does not always make me call her that—is a Member of the other place. She was also Leader of the House of Lords for more than six years, so I have perhaps had more dealings with Members of the other place, including hereditaries, than most. As a result, I have a view about how our two Houses operate effectively in practice, rather than the somewhat theoretical perspective we have heard from some of the newer Members of this House.

The House of Lords is an important revising Chamber, without the guillotines and time limits that are so common in our House, while recognising and respecting the ultimate supremacy of this House. In doing so, it can draw on the considerable knowledge and expertise of former defence chiefs, diplomats, scientists, engineers, businesspeople and, yes, those from whom this Bill seeks to remove the right to sit as peers.

The fundamental point, reflected in a number of contributions from Conservative Members and in the reasoned amendment, is that this Bill has been brought forward in isolation from wider reforms. It ignores the convention that constitutional changes are based on consensus, where possible, and it fails to provide time for a cross-party approach on wider reform. It is best described as piecemeal and, as such, conflicts with the commitments given in 1999, at the time of the House of Lords Act, that the hereditaries would remain until wider reforms came forward.

Well, there are no wider reforms in this Bill. Even the proposed retirement age of 80 has been quietly dropped. Perhaps Ministers have realised the challenge of interfering with letters patent issued by the sovereign, or perhaps their timidity reflects the lack of consensus on the Government Benches about wider reforms, as we saw in response to Gordon Brown’s proposals.

Such reforms would have to consider the issues of giving greater power to the House of Lords and the impact this would have on the primacy of the Commons. They would have to consider the potential for legislative gridlock, the desirability of creating more professional politicians and, as many have mentioned, the rationale for retaining guaranteed places for bishops in the upper Chamber. Those are just some of the questions that comprehensive reform would need to address, and they require considerable cross-party consideration and analysis.

No one would create the Lords today, but the system works. This rushed legislation, which rather suggests a Government lacking a substantive legislative programme, will remove considerable experience. It reveals a lack of knowledge of the contribution made by Members of the House of Lords, such as my noble Friend Earl Howe, with whom I worked closely when he was a Defence Minister. He has served continuously on the Conservative Front Bench for 33 years, including 20 years as a Minister.

It ignores the role of the usual channels—the Whips and the business managers—in seeking to manage legislation at both ends. The Earl of Courtown, who will be known to many for his eight years of distinguished service as a Government Deputy Chief Whip, now continues that role in opposition. He and Lord Ashton of Hyde navigated the choppy waters of Brexit and covid in a House in which there is no Conservative majority.

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Wild]

I would give way, but I am not sure that the hon. Lady has been here for most of the debate, so I will not.

Earl Howe, the Earl of Courtown and Lord Ashton of Hyde are just three of the peers who bring great experience and ability to the other place. Many of the peers who will be removed are Cross Benchers.

[Tom Hayes]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[James Wild]

I am not giving way.

Finally, I want to say something about the commencement of this legislation. If passed unamended, the excepted peers will be unceremoniously booted out at the end of the Session in which the Bill is passed. After the service and commitment they have given to public life, surely it would be fairer for them to remain there until the end of the Parliament.

To conclude, before embarking on constitutional reform, there should be a proper period of consideration. It is a sign of the complexity of reform of the House of Lords that previous efforts have not attracted the necessary consensus, but the answer is not to bring forward piecemeal reform, pretending it has no wider consequence.