Appointment of Lord Lebedev

Michael Ellis Excerpts

Tuesday 29th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Michael Ellis)]

Let me first address the situation in Ukraine. President Volodymyr Zelensky has spoken of the Prime Minister and people of the United Kingdom as being among his greatest allies, and the Kremlin has spoken of the United Kingdom as a leading opponent. I am proud of that position, and we will continue to support Ukraine—as I know will the whole House—and the courageous people of that sovereign and independent country.

The motion before the House calls on the Government to release advice provided by or to the House of Lords Appointments Commission, and relevant communications thereto. The Government regret today’s motion for any number of reasons—I will come on to those—but particularly because, for the first time in many decades there is a war in Europe, and there are many pressing domestic concerns and issues. It is somewhat surprising that the Opposition have brought forward for discussion this afternoon an ad hominem attack on a single individual.

Although Parliament has unlimited power to call for papers, persons and records, historically the House has exercised restraint in the use of that power, and for good reason. That the motion seeks not to show restraint is, in my submission, unfortunate. I accept that Parliament has a vital scrutiny role and should use its power to facilitate it, but that does not extend to making use of the procedures of this place to single out an individual by making unsavoury and ad hominem attacks of the kind we have heard and will be hearing this afternoon.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Michael Ellis]

Before I give way, which I will be happy to do, may I gently point out to the Opposition that—and I say this in all candour—they ought to be careful of intolerant messaging? Not all Russians are our enemy. Many British citizens of Russian extraction came to this country with a view to an opposition to President Putin. People cancelling Tchaikovsky concerts is not appropriate, and Labour seeking to whip up anti-Russian feeling or casting all persons of Russian extraction in a negative light is wrong.

Furthermore, the disclosure of the information sought here today would undermine the very role of the House of Lords Appointments Commission. Labour is asking for something that would break the appointments process in the House of Lords. It would chip away at the careful vetting procedures and the exchange of information that necessarily has to be discreet.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Michael Ellis]

If I may, I will just finish this thought.

Let us not forget that the commission of which we are speaking is independent, expert, advisory, and cross-party, with Labour, Liberal and Conservative members, and it was set up by Tony Blair and the Labour party in the year 2000—more than 20 years ago.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

On the Minister’s point about Labour being Russophobic, I lived and worked in Russia for three years as director of the British Council in St Petersburg, and we worked every day with ordinary Russians—good people—who want that country to be a normal country connected to the rest of the world. The people we are talking about today are not ordinary Russians. We are talking about a former KGB spy and the woman who was married to a former deputy Finance Minister who has given millions of pounds to the Conservative party. I humbly ask the Minister to withdraw the comment about Russophobia. We have no problem with the Russian people; we have a big problem with what he is talking about today.

[Michael Ellis]

No, I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. In fact, the noble Lord who is the subject of this debate is not a Conservative party donor and never has been, so the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong on all those fronts. The motion before the House today is what I have said it is.

[Shaun Bailey]

Further to the point of the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), I wonder whether my right hon. Friend and learned Friend could give me his thoughts on this tweet that has just come through, which contains this from the Leader of the Opposition:

“Congratulations on your elevation to the House of Lords. All best wishes, Keir”?

Is what is good for the goose good for the gander? What does the Minister think about that?

[Michael Ellis]

It has been mentioned that Lord Lebedev has been tweeting this afternoon, and I understand that he has tweeted in the past few minutes that the Leader of the Opposition congratulated him on his appointment as a peer. That must be rather embarrassing for the Labour party.

[Matt Western]

I sometimes think that the Minister must be the Derek Underwood of the Front Bench in that he is the nightwatchman defending the indefensible.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) just said, we are clearly talking about someone with huge influence who has worked closely with the Prime Minister and collaborated in delivering certain election victories for him as the Mayor of London.

[Michael Ellis]

Lord Lebedev is a British citizen of Russian extraction who, I understand, had his primary and secondary education in this country. I see no logic in the Labour party’s assessment.

In order to put this issue in its true context, it is necessary to remind hon. Members of the process for nominations for peerages. The power to confer a peerage, with the entitlement to sit in the House of Lords, is vested in Her Majesty the Queen and is exercised on the advice of the Prime Minister. It is a long-established feature of our constitutional arrangements. The Prime Minister is ultimately responsible to Parliament, as he is in all matters, and to the people of the country for any nominations he makes.

Two events have served to shape that process. First, the House of Lords Act 1999 ended the right of hereditary peers to pass membership of the other place down through their families. Secondly, the House of Lords Appointments Commission was created in May 2000—under Labour, which now wishes to break it—and it recommends individuals for appointment as non-party political life peers, such as those on the Cross Benches, and has political representation from the three parties within its members. The vetting process is at the heart of its work. The commission seeks to ensure the highest standards of propriety, and I include party political nominees within that.

It does not apply in the instant case, but it should not be a matter of opprobrium that somebody be a party political supporter. Labour has hundreds of peers in the House of Lords. The Liberal Democrats have some 83 peers despite them having barely enough Members of Parliament to fill a minicab. There is nothing wrong with having a political affiliation.

The House of Lords Appointments Commission seeks advice from a number of sources during its deliberations. Any time we ask any independent advisory body to obtain advice, and it does so discreetly and in confidence, if we seek to break that process, said body will not be able to function. Once all the evidence has been considered, the commission will either advise the Prime Minister that it has no concerns about an appointment or will draw its concerns to the Prime Minister’s attention. It is a long-standing position that it is for the Prime Minister of the day to recommend appointments to the House of Lords. For that reason, the Prime Minister continues to place great weight on the commission’s careful and considered advice before making any recommendations. That arrangement has served successive Prime Ministers of both parties but, as in other areas, they must carefully balance a range of evidence.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way to a Liberal Democrat, few as we are. Nevertheless, I draw his attention to another tweet from Lord Lebedev:

“Openness and transparency are pillars of our democratic system, so I welcome the call for security advice about me…to be released. I have nothing to hide.”

The Minister is highlighting the fact that the appointment was questioned by that commission, so I do not see his argument, because it sounds like there were concerns. If Lord Lebedev has nothing to hide and the commission made its recommendation, that prompts the question: what do the Government have to hide?

[Michael Ellis]

I thank the hon. Lady for asking that question. This is not about any one individual. The Opposition are seeking it to be about one individual who cannot answer for himself in this House, which is wrong. The Government are seeking to protect the system, so even if Lord Lebedev has said that he does not mind, it is not, with the greatest respect, only about him; this is about protecting the system, because the House of Lords Appointments Commission would not be able to function.

The Leader of the Opposition wrote to the commission earlier this month and received a reply a week or two ago, which I believe is in the public domain, in which it outlined the process and did not highlight any problems. The reality is that the Government are seeking to protect a system that has worked well for 22 years, so I ask the House to bear that in mind.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

The Minister has said that the House of Lords Appointments Commission takes a variety of information from a variety of sources and organisations. That is perfectly reasonable. Is he suggesting, however, that the opinions or information of the intelligence services should somehow be of less importance than information from another body?

[Michael Ellis]

No, I am not suggesting anything of the sort. In fact, I have no personal knowledge of those from whom the commission obtains its information. It is for the commission, which has Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat and independent members, to make its own judgments, and we heard from the commission in the letter I mentioned, which I think was from Lord Bew.

[Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)]

Quite rightly, we should be concerned about Russian money coming into our political system, but my right hon. and learned Friend at the Dispatch Box is right in what he says. We really should point out who the Prime Minister was who let the fox into the chicken coup. Who was it, for instance, in 2003 when Roman Abramovich bought Chelsea football club? It was none other than the new Labour Prime Minister, Tony Blair.

[Michael Ellis]

Yes, well, I will leave the House to draw its own conclusions about that.

I have to say that the individual who is the subject of this debate is a British citizen. He happens to be of Russian extraction. I understand that he has been in this country since primary school age. It is important to emphasise that this is about British people whose ancestry and heritage should not be relevant. As the owner of a regional newspaper, I understand that the London Evening Standard has raised £300,000 for its Ukraine appeal, £3 million for its AIDSfree campaign, and £13 million for its Dispossessed fund for persons in poverty in London and the Grenfell tragedy. I think that is something to be applauded.

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)]

Let us just get this right: this Lord Lebedev is educated here at primary school and senior school, he does not donate to political parties, he donates to charities and he is a good citizen. That lot over there on the Opposition Benches do not want to be involved in democracy. Is it the case that they just do not like foreign names? [Interruption.]

[Michael Ellis]

Well, I will invite the House to draw its own conclusion. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I did say at the beginning that we must have good temper in this debate. Shouting at the Minister or anyone else does not help.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Let me make this absolutely clear: nobody in this Chamber is calling anybody xenophobic. If anybody has used phrases like that, stop it now. I am not having it repeated. I am taking it that these things have not been said, because it would be better if they have not. Now, let us keep this at the right level. There is no need for superlative insults to go from one side to the other.

[Michael Ellis]

To return to where I started, there are so many issues that affect people’s lives that we could be debating today, for example: my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s income tax cuts, the first in 16 years; the 5p cut in fuel duty; or my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary’s plans to make sure that any child who falls behind in English or maths gets the support they need to get back on track. I find it surprising, at the very least, that the Opposition have chosen this particular motion, one that, at best, would compromise the ability of an independent body, which is respected for its independence, to fulfil its mandate simply to make a short-term political point. At worst, it would be negligent of the long-term consequences to the key role of the House of Lords in scrutinising the Executive and being a revising Chamber, and the valued expertise and specialist knowledge and experience of its Members.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I think lots of my colleagues would say that we have tabled the motion because it gets to the heart of who we are as a country and a democracy. Given the Prime Minister’s long-term relationship with the Lebedev family, what does the Minister think it looks like not to have published the Intelligence and Security Committee report before the 2019 general election?

[Michael Ellis]

That is not relevant to this debate. I will tell the hon. Lady what this debate looks like: it looks like the Labour party is focusing on an individual because of who he is. It is doing so unfairly and improperly, and it is seeking to break a process. The reality, as we have heard, is that Labour Members have also supported this individual, socialised with him and sent him messages of support. There is nothing wrong with that. I do not criticise Labour Members if they have sent supportive text messages to Lord Lebedev. I do not criticise anyone in this House for doing so. As the owner of newspapers, no doubt he interacts with a large number of individuals, even though he is a Cross Bencher. What I criticise, and what I urge the House to exercise with considerable caution, is how it looks to attack an individual because of his heritage or because of his extraction. That is the key point.

The other key point to make here is that confidentiality in respect of the process ensures that it operates in the interests of the Labour party and the Conservative party, and that the process of appointing peers of this realm is a fair and dutiful one. The probity and the confidence of the system would be compromised if we broke it. If we said that henceforth we cannot ask people to send in confidence their opinions of individuals whom the Leader of the Opposition or the Conservative party have put forward for a peerage, anyone would know in future that if they wrote to the commission in confidence it could then be out in the public domain. They would not do it and that would damage the process. I would have thought that is rather obvious.

The Government believe that to ensure the ability of the commission to conduct robust vetting and to provide advice that is not compromised, the process should continue to be conducted confidentially, with disclosure at the discretion of the Prime Minister, who is ultimately responsible for making recommendations to Her Majesty on appointments to the Lords, or of the commission, as a body independent of Government and responsible for the vetting of nominations.

Before I sit, I would like to address, if I may, the use today of the Humble Address procedure. The House itself has recognised the need for this process to be used responsibly. The Government response to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee’s 15th report said:

“The Government therefore agrees with PACAC that this device should not be used irresponsibly or over-used.”

The Procedure Committee observed in its May 2019 report:

“The House, by its practice, has observed limitations on the power: it does not use the power to call for papers which Ministers do not have the authority to obtain, nor does it use it to obtain papers of a personal nature.”

That is a fundamental point. Today’s motion is a breach of that process. It demonstrates why the motion is unwise and irresponsible. Motions such as the one before us today crystallise the potential tension between the use of the Humble Address procedure and the responsibility of Ministers not to release information where disclosure would not be in the public interest. We have heard it said that the particular peer himself does not mind whether that information is released, but I submit that that is irrelevant. What we seek to do is protect the process, more than the individual, and that verifies that. The responsibility of Ministers, which I take very seriously, is carefully to balance and weigh up the need for the transparency and openness that we all try to achieve against the equally important, long-standing and competing principle in respect of data protection legislation, which the motion challenges. The Government reiterated, in our response to the Procedure Committee report, the principle of restraint and caution in recognition of the importance of ensuring that the wider public interest is protected.

[Matt Western]

I thank the Minister for giving way a second time; he is being generous. I am sure we all agree how critical transparency is to our democracy. Would that in part of the process there had been any transparency in the origin or source of Lord Lebedev’s wealth, which is particularly pertinent today and has been for the past five weeks since the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The Minister may refer to a message texted to Lord Lebedev 18 months ago, but that was before the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

[Michael Ellis]

Were the hon. Gentleman to look into the matter, he would find that Lord Lebedev has, through his newspapers, publicly criticised the Putin invasion of Ukraine, as one would expect him to do. He has done so on the record.

The motion provides a saving in respect of national security considerations, in that it would allow for the redaction of material

“for the purposes of national security.”

For that reason, I shall not dwell on the national security considerations in depth. I remind the House that Ministers do not comment on national security issues; nevertheless, I stress that weighty public issues are in play that should not be treated lightly.

As I say, when we balance a commitment to transparency against the protection of information when disclosure is not in the public interest, national security is one consideration that the Government must weigh up. Rather than engage in insinuation and speculation—I am afraid that is what has been happening—in respect of matters of national security that must be handled with care and caution, I emphasise that it is and always will be Her Majesty’s Government’s absolute priority to protect the United Kingdom against foreign interference.

It is easy for those in the media or on the Opposition Benches to cast aspersions and invite people to draw assumptions. We cannot answer points about national security in detail, but I emphasise that we in the Government will always give absolute priority to the protection of the United Kingdom from foreign interference. As proof of that, I remind the House that, as announced in the Queen’s Speech, we will introduce new legislation to provide the security services and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to disrupt state threats.

In conclusion, the passing of the motion would have long-term and damaging consequences for the system of appointments to the peerage. It would breach the principles of confidentiality that underpin the process; impugn the reputation of an independent body and damage its ability to undertake its role; and impact on the right of individuals not to have their private lives splashed across the media at the whim of the Opposition Front-Bench team.

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

If the motion is as potentially damaging as the Minister says it is, why will Government Members not vote against it this afternoon?

[Michael Ellis]

It is quite normal practice to ignore Opposition motions; they are given the careful attention they deserve. That is common practice.

The Government regret the fact that the official Opposition have sought to use the procedures of the House to call for the release of information which, if released, would have lasting consequences and undermine the established system of appointments to the peerage. That system has served successive Governments and it is vital to preserving the commission’s ability to undertake its role.

[Shaun Bailey]

In her speech, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) articulated quite an interesting point. I tried to prise an answer out of her in my intervention, when I asked about the idea of the commission perhaps having a veto. Whether or not we disagree with that idea, does my right hon. and learned Friend not find it interesting that the Labour party will not state its definitive position on that? What is his opinion of that? Perhaps it is because Labour wants to use the existing system at some future point to benefit itself.

[Michael Ellis]

I have the feeling it will be a very long time before the Labour party is in a position to do that from the Government Benches.

The broader point is that the privacy rights of individuals need to be protected. The information shared to facilitate the vetting process is and must be handled carefully. It would be unwelcome for this House to set a precedent that such information is released, because, as I have said, to do so could deter individuals from putting themselves forward for such positions. I urge the House to reflect on whether the motion before us accords with the principle of restraint that Parliament has characteristically applied to the use of its powers. The passing of the motion would risk compromising the ability of an independent body to perform its role and, constitutionally, would impede the role of the Prime Minister in advising the sovereign on appointments. The process is necessarily confidential and the Government think it is unwise for the House to call for such information.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the Scottish National party spokesperson, Brendan O’Hara.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Ellis]

With the leave of the House and yourself, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to close the debate.

Let me thank the House for the robust debate on this motion. As has become only too clear, it has, I am sorry to say, become something of an excuse for the Opposition to bring their usual, unfounded criticisms to the table. The insinuation that this Government are soft on Russia—which I think is what this debate is supposed to be about in the eyes of Labour—is obviously nonsense. In fact, our support for Ukraine is second to none. President Zelensky himself has spoken of the United Kingdom in glowing terms; the Russian Kremlin has spoken of this Prime Minister as its principal opponent. We are doing everything and more, and we will continue to do that, to support the people of that sovereign and independent state, so I rebut any suggestion that this Government are in anything other than an exemplary position in supporting the people of Ukraine and resisting the Putin regime’s actions.

But this is not about the people of Russia. This is not about British citizens who are of Russian extraction. To smear a British citizen of Russian extraction in order to score cheap political points against the Prime Minister, who has been Ukraine’s principal ally and is doing a superlative job, seems counterproductive when—if I can say this with the greatest possible respect—Members on the Labour Front Bench and Sadiq Khan, the Labour Mayor of London, have taken hospitality from Lord Lebedev, and when the Leader of the Opposition has sent a congratulatory text message, apparently, to Lord Lebedev on his appointment. As I have said, I do not personally criticise that, but it does seem counterproductive in the light of this debate.

However, back to the topic in hand. We should not visit the sins of any father on his sons or daughters. We did away with Acts of Attainder a very long time ago, but there has been frequent reference to people’s parentage, which I do not think is appropriate. If we look at the topic at hand, we see that, as has been reiterated throughout the debate, the motion is focused on a misunderstanding of the constitutional position. The House of Lords Appointments Commission, HOLAC, is an independent body. It seeks advice from the appropriate vetting agencies. The advice it gives to the Prime Minister—which it has given to Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, and so on, since 2000—is confidential. However, today’s motion would breach the critical confidentiality that underpins the process, damaging the ability of that valued committee, and its independent members, to undertake its role. The motion is careless of the question of the data of private individuals and would allow private information about individuals to be disclosed whenever a political party—any political party—wished for that to happen for purely partisan purposes.

[Clive Efford]

If the motion is nonsense and we are wrong, will the Minister confirm that he has enough votes on the Benches behind him to vote it down?

[Michael Ellis]

I think the hon. Member knows that the common practice is not to vote on Opposition motions—[Laughter]—and for very good reason.

This motion, as the hon. Member knows and as the House knows, is very careless of the position I have outlined. We need to ensure the ability of that committee to conduct robust vetting and to provide advice that is not compromised. The process should continue to be conducted confidentially.

Reference was made by the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) earlier in the debate to the ISC’s report, which was published in July 2020. That was welcomed by the Government. The Government’s response was published on the same day as the ISC’s report, and I would say this on Russian intelligence. We expelled 23 undeclared Russian intelligence officers after Salisbury. We have attributed cyber-attacks where appropriate to Russian intelligence, we have exposed those involved in hacking, and we have exposed the military build-up on the Ukrainian border. We do what we need to do to protect the national security and national interests of this country.

[Layla Moran]

rose—

[Michael Ellis]

I am conscious of the time, but I will give way.

[Layla Moran]

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. All those things are very laudable, but will he enlighten the House on how many of the recommendations to the Government in the Russia report have been implemented?

[Michael Ellis]

That has nothing to do with this matter, as I am sure the hon. Lady well knows. I reiterate that we must ensure the ability of the House of Lords Appointments Commission to conduct robust vetting, and to provide advice that is not compromised. That process should continue. I have heard hon. Members say that certain individuals do not mind if detail of the vetting process is disclosed as far as it concerns them. Well, I reiterate that this is not about any one individual. If someone wishes to show that they have nothing to hide, that is laudable and understandable, but we need to protect the process for all. This is not about one individual; it is about protecting the integrity of the system—a system that serves this nation very well. The process should continue to be conducted confidentially, and disclosure should be at the discretion of the Prime Minister.

[Mr Bradshaw]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, given that he referred a moment or two ago to my remarks on the Russia report, and claimed that the Government welcomed its publication. I have to remind him and the House that the Prime Minister tried his darnedest to prevent the report’s publication—so much so, that he tried to put a patsy in the Intelligence and Security Committee as Chair, but failed. It was only when that failed that the Committee published the report. The Prime Minister did everything in his power to prevent the publication of the report, and has failed to implement its recommendations.

[Michael Ellis]

I do not recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of the Prime Minister’s position. The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that no one can hold a candle to this Prime Minister in his integrity, honesty and opposition to the Putin regime. That has been proven time and again, throughout the international arena.

[Holly Lynch]

Will the Minister put some speculation to bed right now by either confirming or denying that the Prime Minister met Alexander Lebedev in April 2018?

[Michael Ellis]

I have no individual knowledge on that point, but the House of Lords Appointments Commission, in the person of Lord Bew, wrote to the Leader of the Opposition, after he wrote to Lord Bew, and addressed the matter, and nothing disorderly is said to have occurred. The fact of the matter is that the processes are followed routinely, as they have been throughout. How the vetting process works in any individual case is outwith my knowledge, but the Labour party ought to exercise caution—I say it respectfully—in casting aspersions on individuals because they happen to have Russian ancestry or heritage. That is the effect of the motion, and it is unworthy and certainly inappropriate.

In conclusion, we must ensure the ability of the commission to conduct robust vetting, and to provide advice that is not compromised. This process should continue to be conducted confidentially, with disclosure being at the discretion of the Prime Minister, who is, after all, ultimately responsible for making recommendations to the sovereign on appointments to the House of Peers; and the commission, independent of Government, is responsible for vetting nominations. I urge the House to reflect on whether this motion is a responsible use of its powers.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That, given the concerns raised about the appropriateness of, and process for, appointing Lord Lebedev as a member of the House of Lords and the role of the Prime Minister in that process, an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty that she will be graciously be pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, no later than 28 April,

(a) any document held by the Cabinet Office or the Prime Minister’s Office containing or relating to advice from, or provided to, the House of Lords Appointments Commission concerning the appointment of Evgeny Alexandrovich Lebedev as a Member of the House of Lords; and

(b) the minutes of, submissions relevant to and electronic communications relating to, any meeting within the Cabinet Office or the Prime Minister’s Office at which the appointment of Lord Lebedev, or advice relating to that appointment, was discussed in a form which may contain redactions, but such redactions shall be solely for the purposes of national security.

Standards Committee Call for Evidence: Government Response

Michael Ellis Excerpts

Friday 18th March 2022 Written Statements

[The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Michael Ellis)]

On 29 November 2021, the House of Commons Committee on Standards invited responses to its proposals for reform of the code of conduct for Members. The Government’s joint response to the Standards Committee in the name of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Leader of the House of Commons has now been published by the Committee.

The joint response reflects the Government’s view that the rules relating to Members of the Executive, in particular Ministers of the Crown, are different from those relating to Members of the legislature, in particular, Members of Parliament. The rules, and the application of those rules, are rightly separate, reflecting the different roles that these offices play and reflecting the underlying constitutional principle of the separation of powers.

The response makes clear that, first and foremost, Members have a duty to their constituents, and any outside work should be within reasonable limits, in order for an MP’s parliamentary duties to take priority. That is why the Government brought forward an amendment (which the House approved on 17 November 2021) to support the introduction of limits on Members undertaking outside work. These were that MPs should be prohibited from any paid work to provide services as a parliamentary strategist, adviser or consultant and that outside work should be undertaken only within “reasonable limits”. It is imperative that paid advocacy work is regulated in order that any employers—be they businesses, NGOs or trade unions—do not obtain undue access or strategic parliamentary advice.

The Government are also now considering with interest Sir Ernest Ryder’s review of the House’s current system of investigating and deciding upon breaches of the code of conduct and its compatibility with the principles of fairness and natural justice. The Government have previously indicated that they support the broad principle of a right to appeal.

The Government are grateful to the Standards Committee for its consideration of these important questions, await with interest its final report and look forward to further debate on the issues raised, to ensure that our standards system commands both the confidence of the public and Members on a cross-party basis.

The Government’s joint response to the Standards Committee can be found at: https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/106952/pdf/.

The Government are also today publishing their response to the Committee on Standards in Public Life’s review of local government ethical standards, setting out the Government’s position on the successful operation of the Localism Act 2011, which ensures transparency and accountability in local government. The Government note their willingness to take further steps to protect the home addresses of councillors, where there are concerns that disclosure could lead to intimidation.

In both cases, the Government have underlined the importance of protecting elected representatives’ rights to exercise free speech within the law. The Government express concern that some of the proposed changes to the Commons code of conduct could have a chilling effect on Members commenting on contentious matters of public policy.

It is important to distinguish between strongly felt political debate on the one hand, and unacceptable acts of abuse, intimidation and violence on the other. British democracy has always been robust and oppositional. Free speech within the law can sometimes involve the expression of political views that some may find offensive. A line is crossed when disagreement mutates into intimidation, which refuses to tolerate other opinions and seeks to deprive others from exercising their free speech and freedom of association. But standards rules should not be used to suppress the legitimate expression of different political views.

[HCWS699]

Infected Blood Compensation Framework

Michael Ellis Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2022 Written Statements

[The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Michael Ellis)]

On 20 May 2021, the Government announced the appointment of Sir Robert Francis QC to carry out a study to look at options for a framework for compensation for people infected and affected by infected blood, and it was agreed that the study would report back to the Government before the independent Infected Blood Inquiry reports.

I am pleased to confirm that Sir Robert delivered his report to me on 14 March. Sir Robert completed the comprehensive and detailed study in a timely fashion, and I would like to thank Sir Robert and his team for the careful and sensitive way they have worked. I would also like to thank all those who contributed to the study, sharing their experiences and views with Sir Robert. I know this must have been very difficult for many. I am grateful for their valuable contributions.

I will now carefully consider Sir Robert’s findings and recommendations. It is my intention to publish the study and the Government response, in time for the inquiry and its core participants to consider them before Sir Robert gives evidence to the inquiry. I will write in due course to Sir Brian Langstaff, the chair of the inquiry, about our plans for responding and publication.

[HCWS681]

Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill

Michael Ellis Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 14th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Michael Ellis)]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

The Bill passed through the other place, where it was carefully scrutinised and amended in only one respect: to seek to retain a role for this honourable House in respect of Dissolution. The Lords amendment provided that the Prime Minister could request the sovereign exercise—the revived prerogative powers to dissolve and call Parliament—only when this House agreed the motion

“that this present Parliament will be dissolved.”

That would create an untested, hybrid system by imposing statutory arrangements on top of the prerogative system that existed prior to the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. Such statutory constraints would undermine the flexibility that for generations characterised the pre-2011 arrangements that the Government want to reinstate. With respect, the Government therefore firmly disagree with the Lords amendment.

In fact, the Government and the Opposition both committed—in their manifestos, no less—to repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. The Lords amendment would repeal that Act only to retain one of its fundamental flaws. That is not our wish or our intention and it does not meet the commitment that we made to the electorate.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I am hugely relieved to hear the Minister say that. I have stood in every election since 1997. Only when we saw the chaos caused by a Government who did not want to continue and an Opposition who did not want the chance to face an election could we see how dreadful that old system was. We need to get rid of it, bag and baggage.

[Michael Ellis]

I agree with my right hon. Friend; there is of course a good reason why the 2017 to 2019 Parliament is referred to as the zombie Parliament.

I remind the House of the commitments that both parties made in 2019. The Conservatives committed to repealing the Fixed-term Parliaments Act.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Will the Minister confirm that, if we dismiss Lords amendment 1 today, the courts will not have a role in fixing the dates for elections, because, surely, that is matter for us, answerable to the electors?

[Michael Ellis]

My right hon. Friend is quite right that it is not productive, and, in fact, it would not be in the interests of the judiciary themselves, for the courts to have such a role.

We committed to repealing the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, as it had led to paralysis at a time when the country needed decisive action. In a similar vein, the Labour manifesto said that the 2011 Act

“stifled democracy and propped up weak governments.”

A vote in the Commons could create paralysis in a number of contexts, including minority Governments, coalition Governments, or where our parties, Parliament or even the nation, at some point in the future, were divided.

As a majority on the Joint Committee on the Fixed-term Parliaments Act noted, a Commons vote would have a practical effect only where Parliament were gridlocked. The problem is that if the Government of the day had a comfortable majority, a vote would be unlikely to make any difference; it would have no meaningful effect, beyond causing unnecessary delay and expense. However, when Parliament is gridlocked, a vote could mean denying an election to a Government who were unable to function effectively. We witnessed the consequences of such a vote painfully in 2019, so let us not repeat that mistake by devising a system where those events could happen again. Lords amendment 1 is, therefore, with the greatest possible respect, without merit.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned what happens in the event of a minority Government. What would happen where the Prime Minister of a minority Government wished to call a general election, but there was the possibility of an alternative Government being formed? Would that Prime Minister be able to dissolve Parliament by prerogative in those circumstances, or would another person be given an opportunity to form a Government and a majority in the House of Commons?

[Michael Ellis]

I do not want to get into hypotheticals, but what I will say is that the pre-2011 position worked extremely well. There is a reason why it worked well and it was proven to have functioned correctly. We seek to go back to a proven, tried and tested system, which works in a whole variety of different circumstances, not every one of which can be easily expostulated.

[Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)]

Does my right hon. and learned Friend share my disbelief at some of the opposition to the current position, especially as we recall the chaos that led to the last general election and the frustration among the public when Parliament, in many people’s eyes, seemed to lose the respect of the population?

[Michael Ellis]

Good constitutional practice involves protecting the integrity of the legislature, the Executive and the judiciary and, in our view, the proposals do that and this amendment would not, so I agree with what my right hon. Friend says.

[Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)]

I sat on the Joint Committee that reviewed the 2011 Act and we spent long, productive and interesting hours looking at it. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is really unproductive to look at our future arrangements in the context of what happened in 2019, just as it is to look at them in the context of what happened in 2010? The beauty of our system must be that the constitution can flex. Those were particularly unique circumstances in 2019, and we should not let them affect what happens going forward.

[Michael Ellis]

My hon. Friend is completely right. In fact, it is difficult to expostulate all the different scenarios that may occur in future, so it is best to avoid that, but we know what worked well—the status quo ante the 2011 Act.

As I say, we have experienced the consequences of a statutory scheme and we know what happened in 2019, but the amendment is also dangerously silent on critical questions of implementation and is likely to have undesirable consequences for our constitutional system. For example, it is likely to have negative consequences for the fundamental conventions on confidence. The privilege to request that the sovereign exercise the Dissolution prerogative is an Executive function enjoyed by virtue of the ability of the Government to command the confidence of the Commons. That is the alpha and omega of everything, and should not unduly constrained by any sort of prescriptive parliamentary process that would be disruptive and unhelpful when expediency is essential.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

The Minister responded to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) by saying that he fully agreed with her excellent statement, but he is in essence doing the exact opposite. Why this paradoxical situation?

[Michael Ellis]

I am obviously not doing that. We are able to see where mistakes have been made and where things have gone well in the past, and we see that in the pre-2011 position—the position we are seeking to achieve and that Labour sought to achieve in its manifesto, as did my party. That tried and tested system worked well, and worked well for generations.

[Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)]

May I refer my right hon. and learned Friend to “The Crown”, of which I am sure he was an avid viewer? In answer to the intervention by the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), is my right hon. and learned Friend familiar with the Lascelles principles, as written to The Times under the pseudonym “Senex”, and can he update the House on whether they now form part of the Cabinet manual?

[Michael Ellis]

The Lascelles principles are something we still respect. One of the fundamental tenets of Sir Alan Lascelles’ letter was the fact that we wished to avoid any suggestion that the sovereign be involved in politics.

The amendment, as I was saying, is silent on the issue of the negative consequences. The privilege to request that the sovereign exercise the Dissolution prerogative is an executive function that is enjoyed by virtue of the ability to command the confidence of the Commons.

We must also question how the amendment would work in practice. For example, how would the parliamentary process be sequenced and when would it apply? Would the Prime Minister be required to confirm the support of the House only when they intend to request that Parliament be dissolved before the maximum five-year term, or would it apply following a loss of confidence? There are myriad questions that the amendment would leave unanswered; as we can see, it adds undesired complexity to what is a simple proposition—a return to the status quo ante.

The Bill intends to return us to that status quo, reviving the prerogative powers for the Dissolution and the calling of Parliament and preserving the long-standing position on the non-justiciability of those powers. The amendment would undermine the entire rationale for the Bill. If it is amended as proposed, we would be entering into precisely the kind of ill-thought-through constitutional innovation that we are seeking to repeal.

The simplest and most effective route is to make express provision to revive the prerogative powers for the Dissolution and calling of Parliament, returning our country to tried and tested constitutional arrangements offering certainty around the calling of elections. The prerogative power to dissolve Parliament is the ultimate expression of humility on the part of the Executive, placing the future and power into the hands of the people.

Finally, with all due respect for the undoubted expertise and value of the House of Lords, I suggest it is not appropriate for the revising Chamber to ask the elected House to revisit questions, not least when they relate to the process and role of this House, on which this House has already definitively decided. I thank their lordships, but I hope that they will now take note of this House’s clear view. Therefore, I would welcome this House’s sending a clear signal and I urge it to vote against the amendment.

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak for the Opposition in this debate.

I listened very carefully to the case that the Minister made for his motion to remove Lords amendment 1 to clause 2. I was sad to hear it, and I think we could do better. He is right that Labour, both in our manifesto and in the two years since, has supported the principle of the repeal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, which was an ill-thought-out and poorly executed piece of legislation. I gently say, though, given how strongly the Minister stressed that, that it was this Government’s piece of legislation, not ours. He cautions us against novations in this space, but that was actually a lesson for themselves, and it is not quite fair to point it in our direction.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Grady]

It is not really for the Scottish National party to defend the Westminster interpretation of democracy, but the Bill, and rejecting the Lords amendment, is such a retrograde step that we must put that on the record and see it as part of a bigger picture. This is not control being taken back by Parliament but control being taken from Parliament by the Executive and, as a number of other hon. Members have said, consolidating power as part of a package of measures—not least the Elections Bill.

The effect of all that is that the next election campaign starts today. Everyone in the Chamber must therefore be aware of what they are doing when they cast their vote on the amendment. The campaigning starts today. The power will end up with the Prime Minister and he alone, without the check of his Cabinet or of this House. That is a significant power grab that will further undermine confidence among the public in the institutions of this place. Again, I say to Government Members that, from an SNP point of view, that is fine in a way. The Bill and the rest of their package of reform is not strengthening the Union. As I said in my interventions, we can look at the systems in place to protect the devolved institutions’ democracies and see how they can dissolve only with the permission of the legislature or must operate to a fixed term that everyone knows in advance, but the Bill is taking this place backwards. It is increasing the divergence on these islands. Once again, from where I am standing, that is fine, but perhaps Government Members ought to think twice about it.

[Michael Ellis]

First, may I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) that I, too, am a romantic—that may come as a surprise to the House—especially when it comes to the constitution? I agree that flex is required and that it is highly desirable to have an unwritten constitution that gives us that flex and ability to change things as needed while accepting the conventions of our constitution.

The Lords amendment before the House is not a small amendment; in fact, it is a wrecking amendment as it would convert the whole purpose of the Bill. I can hardly think of anything more democratic than saying: a Government of any particular day might have lost of the confidence of the elected House and will therefore go to the country and ask the people for their view.

I know that the Opposition would not want to go back to 2019 and, as happened then, block a general election three times. That is no doubt why they agreed in their manifesto that the 2011 Act had to go. Let us not allow that to happen again. Let us hand power to the people, let us protect the sovereign from involvement in politics and let us disagree with the Lords amendment.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

Sanctions

Michael Ellis Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2022 Commons Chamber

3.7 pm

[The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Michael Ellis)]

I beg to move,

That the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2022 (SI, 2022, No. 194), dated 28 February 2022, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28 February, be approved.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

With this we shall consider the following motion:

That the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2022 (SI, 2022, No. 195), dated 28 February 2022, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28 February, be approved.

[Michael Ellis]

The instruments before us were laid under the powers provided by the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018—also known as the sanctions Act. These instruments came into effect at midnight last night.

As stated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, we have announced the largest and the most severe package of punitive economic and trade sanctions that Russia has ever seen in response to Putin’s pre-meditated, pre-planned and barbaric invasion. We will continue to ratchet up the pressure, working in concert with our allies around the world. We have already imposed sanctions on Vladimir Putin, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, five Russian banks, 120 businesses and a long list of Russian oligarchs. Taken together, this targets assets worth hundreds of billions of pounds. Throughout, we have worked with our allies, including to agree to remove selected Russian banks from the SWIFT system and we have agreed to target the Russian central bank, but we will go further. I want to say to this House that we will continue to stand with the Ukrainian people in their heroic efforts to face up to unbridled aggression and that nothing is off the table.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Let me take the right hon. and learned Gentleman back to what he said about the number of individuals who have been sanctioned, as I do not think it is hundreds since this situation in Ukraine—it is eight. It is hundreds since 2014, and that conflation is unhelpful. As I understand it, the Government are finding it difficult to get all their ducks in a row in relation to these individual oligarchs, and the European Union is doing this much quicker. I hope he heard what I said earlier, because I think that that is because the legislative measure used in the EU is more effective in providing legal certainty for the sanctioning body. Why do we not put names of people on our sanctions? There is not a single name on the measure before us. We do this in a very legalistic way and the danger is that Mr Abramovich will have sold everything by the time we get round to sanctioning him.

[Michael Ellis]

I note what the hon. Gentleman says, but it is not often that people refer to the mechanisms of the EU as speedy. If he says that they are speedier than ours, clearly that is something for the system to look at. But we have a system that we are using at the moment, that has applied and that is what we have to go through. We are acting faster than ever before and we are leading the way in this area.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

Will my right hon. and learned Friend update the House on what action the Government are taking to deal with the loophole that remains Scottish limited partnerships? They remain popular with Russians and Belarusians in terms of being able to invest in property and raise cash in the UK, which undoubtedly goes to support some of the very people we are seeking to stop acting in the way that they are in Ukraine at the minute.

[Michael Ellis]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and of course he is right to focus on those areas in particular, as he has a marked interest in them as regards Scotland. Where these measures are applied, they apply throughout the UK. We always want to look at any areas where he might bring issues to our attention, but these measures apply throughout the UK—

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Michael Ellis]

I want to make a little progress. Last night, we laid new legislation in Parliament on financial measures, including on sovereign debt; a prohibition to limit access to sterling; and a ban on any Russian company issuing securities or raising finance in the UK. That significantly further strengthens our arsenals of sanctions against Russia and it comes alongside increased trade measures, including a prohibition on sensitive “dual-use” items, which could be used by the military, and a ban on a further range of crucial industry goods, from high-tech to aircraft.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Michael Ellis]

I am going to make a little progress and then I will give way. Sanctions announced by the UK and our allies are already having an impact. Yesterday, the rouble dropped 40% of its value, before closing 25% down; central bank interest rates have more than doubled, from 9% to 20%; international businesses are quickly divesting, as we have been hearing in the media; and the rouble is now trading at about a quarter of what it was when Putin took power. That will have an impact on the institutions that prop Putin up and that prop his cronies up.

[Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

I appreciate all that my right hon. and learned Friend is doing, but we are talking about the cronies and not the institutions as well. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is right; I do not see why we cannot just use privilege in this House to name some of the three dozen “dirty oligarchs”. Why can we not use privilege? What law firms and lawyers are holding this up? How much money—how many billions of pounds—will have fled the country by the time we nail these people down?

[Michael Ellis]

We work with our allies around the world on names. This is an effort between allies; we co-operate and discuss the matters, and officials work on that. The idea is to continue to work with our allies to bring forward further sanctions and press for further collective action to reduce western reliance, for example, on Russian energy.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

I want to pursue the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), because 23 people on the EU sanctions list are not on the UK sanctions list. There are some surprising omissions—not just the oligarchs on the Navalny list, but the commanders in chief of the Black sea fleet, of Russian aerospace forces and of the Russian navy, and the Russian Defence Minister. We need a timetable for adding these people to the list. Crucially, I want to draw the Minister’s attention to paragraph 3.1.3 of the general guidance on sanctions implementation, which states:

“The everyday use by a designated person of their own economic resources for personal consumption is not prohibited.”

I would like the Minister to look at how we actually prohibit the use of the mansions, the jets and the economic assets that these people own. I do not just want them frozen; I want them put beyond use.

[Michael Ellis]

Nothing is off the table. Everything is being considered and is open for consideration. We have rightly taken unprecedented moves, which have been extremely rare in international precedent, if not unheard of, and which go further, in many instances, than what our allies have done. We have led the way in a number of different areas. That is not to say that there is not more still to do. I accept that there is, which is why I say that nothing is off the table.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Michael Ellis]

Let me make a little progress and then I will give way. The solidarity of NATO is resolute, which is why the UK and our NATO allies have been moving troops to our NATO allied states. We will continue to support the legitimate Government of Ukraine and the people of Ukraine in their self-defence against this attack by Vladimir Putin. Let me reinforce this point: we are going to use every lever under our control to that end.

[Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

I suppose the frustration is that we have been told for a long time that economic crime and kleptocracy and the proceeds of economic crime are going to be clamped down on, yet very little that is effective has happened. Now we are hearing something similar from the Minister. What is he doing to beef up enforcement to ensure that these sanctions are actually going to bite? We can have the best sanctions in the universe if we are not enforcing them; they need to be enforced, and fast.

[Michael Ellis]

These powers will have a maximum penalty of up to 10 years’ imprisonment, so that is a “bite” if they are breached.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

It seems that the legal test required to sanction an individual is too high, because the Departments responsible are clearly struggling to amass sufficient evidence to meet that test—evidence such that they feel will be able withstand judicial review or legal challenges by the individuals concerned, who understandably will put together a serious legal team to challenge them. Anyone would do that and that is their legal right. What can this House do, through legislation, to assist the Minister and the Government in making that legal bar easier for them to reach? That is the challenge that Members on both sides of the House are raising today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Ellis]

The House is as one on the wish and the need to apply these measures as expeditiously as possible. But of course my right hon. Friend is right to say that we have to do it properly, not least because a number of perfectly legitimate and lawfully acting UK businesses would be affected by these sorts of measures. It is right that they should not be injuriously affected by what occurs. It is right that, when we are imposing sanctions of up to 10 years’ imprisonment for a violation of these measures, we are also cautious in seeing that they are done properly. I can assure the House that we are working through names, but it takes time. There is a high burden of proof and we will work through it.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

The reason we co-ordinate with our allies is to make our policies effective. If the process of co-ordination takes so long that people can remove their assets beyond our reach and prepare their legal defences so that we cannot overwhelm them, we are defeating ourselves—we are pursuing headline actions without effect. Surely we should limit the extent to which we delay those things and get on with it straightaway.

[Michael Ellis]

I am so pleased that my right hon. Friend says that, because that is exactly what we are doing. The greatest expedition is being applied to this matter.

The legislation follows the made affirmative procedure, as set out in section 55(3) of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. I know the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is familiar with that and supported it strongly in this House both in 2018 and before. The legislation follows the process of that Act, so I have no doubt he will support it. These statutory instruments amend the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 and, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced, the powers they contain will prevent Russian banks from accessing sterling.

This is a significant and new measure for the United Kingdom. Russian banks clear no less than £146 billion of sterling payments into and out of the United Kingdom’s financial system every year. Without the ability to make payments in sterling, designated banks will not be able to pay for trade in sterling. They will not be able to invest in the United Kingdom. They will not be able to access the UK’s financial markets. This measure matches the power the United States already has to prohibit access to the US dollar, and shows our joint resolve with our American allies to remove Russia from the global financial and trade system. Around half of Russian trade is denominated in dollars or sterling.

[Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)]

The objective of sanctions is to limit the escalation of hostilities. I hope we are able to effect that through these measures, but does the Minister not accept that the list exists in some form, as has already been referred to, and the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has already outlined a remedy? Surely it is not beyond the wit of man for us to come together to make these sanctions work and avert an escalation of hostilities?

[Michael Ellis]

That is what we all want to do. These measures will work; the reality is that they follow the mechanism outlined in the 2018 Act.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Michael Ellis]

I must make some progress. Around half of Russian trade, as I have said, is denominated in dollars and sterling. We have already used the power to designate Sberbank, the largest Russian bank, and the same statutory instrument prevents the Russian state from raising debt here and isolates all Russian companies. I emphasise that again, because here we are going further than many of our allies, who have picked out a number of companies that they think may be closely connected with Putin.

With this statutory instrument, we prevent the Russian state from raising debt here and isolate all those Russian company—by the way, there are about 3 million of them. They will now be prevented from gaining access to UK capital markets. This measure goes further than those of our allies and bans all Russian companies from lucrative UK funding.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the banking measures provide an immediate ban? The effect is that if there are debts owed that should be paid into Russian banks, they will not be. That creates an immediate economic shock and plays an important role in doing so.

[Michael Ellis]

My right hon. Friend is certainly right that it creates an immediate economic shock. That is why the effect on the interest rates and on the rouble is as we have already seen: within hours, the shock to the economic system is significant.

Russian businesses listed in London have a combined market capitalisation of more than £450 billion, or nearly half a trillion pounds. That is the money we are talking about. It includes some of Russia’s largest state-owned enterprises, and the Kremlin is hugely reliant on those tax revenues. Banning them from raising debt in London will further increase—massively so, I submit—the burden on the Russian state. Global giants such as Gazprom will no longer be able to issue debt or equity in London. In the past seven years, Russian companies have raised £8 billion on UK markets. That ends today.

The second piece of legislation will ban exports to Russia across a range of items, including those on the dual-use list and other goods and technology critical to Russia’s military-industrial complex, including its maritime and aviation sectors. It will also ban a range of technical and financial services related to such items. By enacting this measure in alignment with the United States, the European Union and other partners, we will collectively cut off much of Russia’s high-tech imports. Those include critical high-end technological equipment such as microelectronics, telecommunications, sensors and marine and navigation equipment. It will blunt Russia’s military-industrial and technological capabilities, it will gradually degrade Russia’s commercial air fleet, and it will act as a drag on Russia’s economy for years to come.

The Department for International Trade and Her Majesty’s Treasury will offer advice and guidance to UK businesses affected. Consular staff will continue to support British nationals in Russia as well as those in Ukraine, and I take this opportunity to commend our consular staff in those places.

[Chris Bryant]

The Minister said earlier that all these measures come into force immediately. Why on earth does the Government measure allow VTB Bank, the second-largest Russian bank, 30 days for clients to be able to remove their assets? I do not even know what the metaphor is in terms of horses and bolts and having already escaped, but this seems preposterous.

[Michael Ellis]

I do not think the individuals involved will consider it a weak measure; on the contrary, I think they will consider it a draconian measure, which is exactly what it is.

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

I want to return to another point and perhaps help the Minister a little bit, because we want to get at the companies, but we also want to get at the individuals—we need to get at both. We have been lax, and I hope he will accept that across this House we think the Government should take more action on individuals. May I suggest that, rather than going through the lengthy legal due diligence that he says is constraining his ability to act against individuals now, he could use the legislation we have on unexplained wealth orders, where the assets of individuals are impounded and it is up to the individuals to prove that they got them legitimately, rather than our waiting to see whether there is a case? Take the assets away and leave it up to the individuals to demonstrate to us that those are legitimate assets with no connection to Putin.

[Michael Ellis]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for mentioning unexplained wealth orders, because that is another thing that this Government have done in order to have the desired effect that she mentions.

In response to the hon. Member for Rhondda, the reason for the 30 days is to have a wind-down on certain measures to allow UK businesses to close their affairs. That is its purpose. It does not enable designated persons to move money within that 30-day window; it is designed to help UK businesses, which will of course also suffer as a result of these measures.

In addition to these two statutory instruments, we are further strengthening our sanctions package by bringing in shipping measures, imminently, and a prohibition on financial services relating to foreign reserves exchange and asset management by the Russian central bank. These will be before the House for consideration soon.

Russia’s aggression against Ukraine is part of a long-term strategy. If we give ground now, or try to accommodate illegitimate Russian concerns, the Russians’ strategy of aggression would not end. We are concerned that they might not stop at Ukraine; instead they might be emboldened. President Putin’s focus would simply potentially move on to the next target. That we cannot have. The UK has therefore been at the forefront of the response in terms of financial aid, aviation measures, lethal aid and sanctions, including on SWIFT.

Acting in concert with our allies, our measures will deliver a devastating blow to Russia’s economy and military for years to come. Co-ordinating with our partners, our sanctions will reverberate through Putin’s regime. We must remain absolutely firm in our response. We must rise to this moment and we must stand with the people of Ukraine. I am determined that we will continue to support them in that choice, and I commend these regulations to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Ellis]

With the leave of the House, I will close this debate. The last three hours have shown us that the House stands united. It has shown us many things, but one of those is that we speak as one in support of Ukraine. Everyone I have heard in this debate, and I have been here almost the whole time, has welcomed these messages. I am grateful to Members who have contributed—there have been insightful and timely discussions—and I will try to address and respond to some of the important questions they have raised.

I emphasise that nothing is off the table. The measures we have taken have already had a hugely significant impact, but we are exploring what more we can do. We are consulting our allies to that end; in this interconnected world, it is crucial that we act as one where we possibly can. I cannot speculate on future designations; that would be inappropriate for many reasons—not least, as many have said, that it might warn individuals whom we would not wish to warn in advance. However, it is thanks to the leadership of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary that we have seen the most significant impacts. I want to address some of these points.

It has been said, for example, that the United Kingdom’s position has not been in tune with that of Europe. On the contrary, our position has been a leading one as far as the European Union response is concerned, but this is not a competition. Many Members have said that more can be done, and I accept that. However, the United Kingdom has placed an asset freeze on VTB, the second largest bank in Russia—an enormous institution—and we have done that along with the United States. The United Kingdom has banned sterling clearing with Sberbank, the largest bank in Russia. The United Kingdom has banned all Russian companies—over 3 million of them—from issuing securities and raising debt. The European Union has done none of those things, but we are focusing on high-impact measures.

It was mentioned that we need to target those listing on the London stock exchange. We have, as I say, prevented 3 million-plus Russian companies from listing on the London stock exchange. As the debate has been going on this very afternoon, I can tell the House that we have designated the Russian Direct Investment Fund and its chief executive officer, Kirill Alexandrovich Dmitriev. That has occurred this afternoon.

One Member—I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami)—asked about delisting existing securities. Although nothing is off the table, delisting existing securities could harm the investments of people in the United Kingdom without having any impact on those who originally issued them. That is why our measures are forward looking, including to prevent the raising of funds by all Russian companies.

The right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) mentioned Companies House, as did a number of other colleagues. As the right hon. Lady may know, the Business Secretary has announced a White Paper on corporate transparency and register reform, greatly increasing the information available. We are legislating for reform of limited partnerships law, new powers to seize crypto-assets, reforms to help businesses share information on money laundering, a register of overseas entities and a requirement for foreign owners to reveal their identities, so work is massively in progress in that regard.

Various colleagues asked about designated persons and their substantial assets. I emphasise that the asset freeze criminalises dealing with the economic resources of a designated person, so were UK nationals and firms to go on to deal with those designated persons, they would be committing a criminal offence, the sanctions for which are considerable.

I was asked about Crown dependencies and overseas territories. I understand that designations made under the regulations will apply automatically in the Crown dependencies. There may be a small lag in terms of the overseas territories, but I am happy to write to Members about that. We will check that position, but we are speaking as one, as are so many allies around the world. The Government agree that more enforcement resource is necessary. One or two colleagues mentioned that from the Labour Front Bench, and the point is accepted. That is why the Prime Minister announced a new National Crime Agency kleptocracy cell, targeting sanctions evasion. We are also introducing the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill today to reform unexplained wealth orders, removing key barriers to their use by the NCA.

I was asked about a shipping matter by my colleague on the Opposition Front Bench, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty). UK Government Ministers have now signed legislation banning all ships that are Russian owned, operated, controlled, chartered, registered or flagged from entering British ports. That was effective from 3 pm this afternoon.

The position as far as the Donbas is concerned is that the Foreign Secretary has been clear that we will put these measures in place and extend measures applying to the Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk regions. On insurance, it will be prohibited to provide insurance or reinsurance to or for the benefit of designated persons in relation to controlled goods and technology.

On guidance, we have already issued statutory guidance, and the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation will be issuing further Russia guidance in due course. As to further banks, the Foreign Secretary has set out her intention to apply an asset freeze to all Russian banks, and I mention the wind-down period of 30 days, which a couple of colleagues also mentioned. The wind-down on certain measures is to allow UK businesses to close their affairs in an orderly fashion. I understand that the same process is taking place under the United States regulations and the European Union regulations. We are all acting as one here. It does not enable designated persons to move money. A request was made about a ban on state debt, which it was said applies in the European Union but not in the United Kingdom. That ban is in the regulations, which are in force now.

As far as the general position is concerned, the House will know that there has been a movement around the world to act in support of Ukraine. That is being led by this Government. It is being led in the field of lethal aid and financial aid, and it was led in the field of aviation sanctions and in the field of sanctions generally. As I mentioned in my opening speech, Her Majesty’s Government are determined to continue to work in close co-ordination with our allies to deal a devastating blow to the Putin regime and undermine its ability—his ability—to wage war in Ukraine. This House’s support for these regulations sends a clear, indefatigable message to the Kremlin and the people of Ukraine. I commend these regulations to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2022 (SI, 2022, No. 194), dated 28 February 2022, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28 February, be approved.

Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2022

Resolved,

That the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2022 (SI, 2022, No. 195), dated 28 February 2022, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28 February, be approved.—(Michael Ellis.)

National Insurance Contributions Bill: Programme (No. 2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the National Insurance Contributions Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 14 June 2021 (National Insurance Contributions Bill (Programme)):

Consideration of Lords Amendments

1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

2. The proceedings shall be taken in the following order: Lords Amendments 2, 4, 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12.

Subsequent stages

3. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.

4. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Rebecca Harris.)

Oral Answers to Questions

Michael Ellis Excerpts

Thursday 13th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Paymaster General (Michael Ellis)]

In December 2020, we published the Government’s response to the consultation on the Green Paper on “Transforming Public Procurement”. We intend to bring forward these detailed and ambitious legislative proposals when parliamentary time allows. The reforms will make it easier for buyers to take account of previous poor performance by suppliers, which is an important factor in deciding whether to award contracts, and there will be clearer and stronger rules about excluding suppliers that pose an unacceptable risk.

[Bob Blackman]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer. What action will he take to get contractors to supply the service for which they are contracted, rather than necessarily cancelling them? However, if they continue to underperform, what action will he take to cancel those contracts and get suppliers in who do the job properly?

[Michael Ellis]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his excellent question. As he knows, the Prime Minister is bringing forward some of the biggest reforms in decades in this country. One of them will be in procurement, which is worth £300 billion a year to our economy. We have seen underperformance and it is of course current Government policy to ensure that suppliers’ past performance in adhering to contracts is taken into account when awarding new contracts. Under the public contract regulations, contracting authorities can use selection criteria, but we will make across-the-board improvements and reforms in the procurement system. I know that my hon. Friend will look forward to that and its benefits.

[Daniel Zeichner]

The Government maintain buying standards for food and catering services. The relevant Select Committee, campaign groups such as Sustain, and Henry Dimbleby with his food plan have all made the point that those standards should be brought up to date. The shadow Chancellor has pledged that Labour will ensure that public bodies have to report on how much British produce they buy. What are the Government doing on that, or is it just open season for Australia, New Zealand, Brazil and the rest?

[Michael Ellis]

The Conservative party is a party of free trade and a free economy. I do not know about the Labour party. We are improving procurement and thereby having a major effect on the economy. The hon. Member, like everyone else, will have to wait for the details of how the new rules will be implemented and how they will work, but, through a Green Paper, we have asked everyone to feed in their ideas and suggestions for detailed policies. Based on that, a Bill is currently being prepared for introduction to Parliament and I know that the hon. Member will look forward to that.

[Nick Smith]

Given that the Government’s VIP lane for personal protective equipment contracts has been ruled unlawful, will there be immediate publication of contracts after emergency procurement to restore faith in the system? It would help avoid having the Government hauled so embarrassingly through the courts.

[Michael Ellis]

I do not accept that characterisation of any technical breaches that may have occurred. If the hon. Member looks at the judgment, he will see that the court ruled yesterday that the Government’s industry call to arms was open, transparent and justified in a time of national emergency. Actually, the court found that it was highly unlikely that the outcome would have been substantially different if a different assessment process had been followed.

[Nia Griffith]

During the pandemic, UK companies stepped up to the mark and changed production lines to meet our needs and increase our resilience. They were encouraged to think that they would get ongoing business for helping out during the PPE shortages. A local SME in my constituency invested more than £700,000 in automating its hand sanitiser production, but now finds that most of its UK Government Department customers have gone back to their original foreign suppliers. What will the Minister do to recognise the resilience that British firms provided, improve the uptake of British-made products by Government Departments and ensure that build back better is not just a slogan?

[Michael Ellis]

I would appreciate it if the hon. Member wrote to me with that particular example. I know that companies in her constituency are ably supported by her and I would like to hear more about that example. She is right that companies across the United Kingdom provided support at a time of national emergency, and they should be thanked for that.

[Kate Osborne]

The shocking news this week that the Government broke the law by handing out contracts worth huge sums to those with political connections shows that cronyism is rife in the Tory party. When will all the emergency procurement procedures end and all the emergency covid contracts finally be published?

[Michael Ellis]

I do not accept that characterisation. The court found that we did not rely on referral to the high priority lane when awarding contracts in certain cases, but that it was a technical matter, and that we were open, transparent and justified in what we did. “Justified” is a key word. As for emergency procurement, that is perfectly routine. It happens all the time, every year, including outside pandemics for various reasons. That will have to continue, but we are looking, in a new procurement Bill, at different ways of proceeding.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

Frustratingly, pre-Brexit, “EU procurement rules” was always trotted out as a reason why local firms, local farms and others never got a look in when it came to local public service contracts. Post Brexit, will the Government take a proactive lead to support local procurement, which benefits local small businesses especially, as well as farmers and local food and drink producers? That would also help to reduce food miles.

[Michael Ellis]

The short answer is yes. Thanks to the work of my noble friend Lord Agnew, who has been working on this matter for a considerable time, my hon. Friend can look forward to further progress.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

The Government’s use of emergency procurement during the pandemic has raised concerns around the transparency of contracts, potential conflicts of interest and the unsuitability of suppliers. Nearly two years on, Government Departments can still use those emergency regulations to bypass open competition and scrutiny. That is unacceptable, and it implies that Departments have failed to plan ahead to meet demand. Will the Minister explain why that has been allowed to continue?

[Michael Ellis]

The availability of an emergency mechanism for procurement existed prior to the pandemic. It has taken place under Governments of all political colours, and it will continue to take place occasionally. The contracts signed by Government with third parties are myriad, and there will frequently be circumstances of supply, or circumstances that relate to particular individual cases where emergency mechanisms have to apply. That is routine and it continues on a regular basis when it has to.

[Rachel Hopkins]

Good procurement that benefits the whole country needs good decisions made by a civil service that reflects the society it serves. However, the civil service fast stream recruitment over the last three years—from 2019 to 2021—resulted in more successful applicants coming from homes in London than the whole of the midlands and north of England put together. Although young people whose parents did not go to university made up more than half of external applicants, they made up only less than a third of those who were offered jobs. What is the Minister doing to rectify that regional and class discrimination in the civil service fast stream recruitment?

[Michael Ellis]

Procurement or otherwise, I am proud of our civil service, and I hope that the hon. Lady is, too. She criticises the civil service and makes a class warfare-type assertion about it—I do not accept that. This country, under this Government, is levelling up. We are levelling up across the country and making reforms in all our mechanisms of government, including in the national health service, housing, the economy and transport, and we are doing it in the civil service, too.

[Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)]

6. What steps he is taking to help strengthen the UK’s resilience against cyber-attacks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

9. If he will take steps to reassure the public that Cabinet Ministers’ personal and lifestyle costs are not being funded by donors and therefore vulnerable to outside influence.

[The Paymaster General (Michael Ellis)]

All Ministers are subject to the ministerial code, which requires Ministers to ensure that no conflict arises, or could arise, between their public duties and their private interests, financial or otherwise.

[Catherine West]

It was so good to hear the Paymaster General praising civil servants, so could he please explain why the Foreign Secretary overruled civil servants’ advice and went to a £3,000 lunch in a private members’ club owned by a Tory donor, and he calls that abiding by the code? Will the Paymaster General immediately include that in the investigation being undertaken into the other boozy parties in No. 10 Downing Street?

[Michael Ellis]

It is absolutely ridiculous to characterise the matter in the way that the hon. Lady does. The reality of the matter is that the Labour party engages in trade union entertainment on every possible occasion. There is no conflict of interest in the matter she describes. Indeed, all the matters that are brought to the attention of the relevant authorities are properly dealt with.

[Mr Speaker]

That is not a very good answer, to be quite honest. I am not impressed with that.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

It would seem to be quite a hard life being a Prime Minister at the moment. In WhatsApp messages to Lord Brownlow that surfaced last week, the Prime Minister described his No. 11 flat as a “bit of a tip” that is desperately in need of a lick of paint, some gold wallpaper and the offices of a leading fashion designer. In return for expediting this, the Prime Minister assured Lord Brownlow that he would take a look at his idea for a great exhibition festival. So we have a new term in British politics: wallpaper for access. Can the Minister give a serious explanation as to why this exchange with Lord Brownlow was not passed on to the independent adviser on ministerial interests but was passed on to the Electoral Commission for its investigation? Out of interest, does he have the Prime Minister’s new number?

[Michael Ellis]

As set out in the letter, Lord Geidt has not changed his assessment that no conflict of interest arose from the support provided by Lord Brownlow. The Prime Minister correctly declared an interest, as required under the ministerial code, and Lord Geidt now considers the matter closed.

[Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)]

11. What steps the Office for Veterans’ Affairs is taking to help improve employment opportunities for veterans.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

13. What consequences staff have faced who were involved in a video reported in the media in December 2021, which showed members of the Prime Minister’s office rehearsing for a press conference.

[The Paymaster General (Michael Ellis)]

Following the long-standing practice of successive Administrations, Her Majesty’s Government do not comment on individual disciplinary matters. The terms of reference for the Cabinet Office’s investigation have been published and the Government have committed to publishing the findings of that investigation.

[Andrew Gwynne]

But now we know that there were parties at Downing Street in lockdown and the Prime Minister was present. It is serious. He knowingly breached the rules that he himself set for the country. He broke the law, and over recent weeks he has told the House things that turned out not to be true, breaking the ministerial code. Allegra Stratton paid the price for joking about parties at Downing Street—parties that the Prime Minister attended. Why is it always the little people who get the chop to save this unsaveable Prime Minister?

[Michael Ellis]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, this matter is under the purview of a senior civil servant—the second permanent secretary at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, who is an expert having been director general of propriety and ethics. She is carefully looking into the matter. She is a highly respected civil servant with probity, independence and integrity, and she will report in due course, swiftly. So the hon. Gentleman will no doubt wish to wait before he jumps to any unwarranted and unevidenced conclusions.

[Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)]

17. What steps his Department is taking to make regulatory reforms following the UK’s departure from the EU.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Paymaster General (Michael Ellis)]

On 15 December, the Prime Minister announced the appointment of the right hon. Baroness Hallett—Heather Hallett—as chair of the public inquiry into covid-19. The inquiry is set to begin its work in the spring of 2022.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I thank the Minister for that answer, but it would appear that discussions on this have not been a priority. The terms of reference for the inquiry have not even been set yet. Bearing in mind the Prime Minister’s distant relationship with the truth, will the Minister outline exactly how the public, and Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice, can have any faith in this inquiry at all?

[Michael Ellis]

We have appointed a very senior figure from the judiciary—a recently retired lady justice of appeal from the Court of Appeal. The Prime Minister has confirmed that the inquiry’s detailed terms of reference will be set out in due course, and the bereaved families and other groups will be consulted before they are finalised. The process will be done carefully and properly and with consultation and consideration for all.

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

Might the Paymaster General consider the approach that was adopted when the infected blood inquiry was set up, whereby those infected and affected have been at the heart of the consultation around the terms of reference? Sir Brian Langstaff made it his first priority to ensure that those people were at the very heart of the infected blood inquiry that he now so ably chairs.

[Michael Ellis]

May I take this opportunity to thank the right hon. Lady again for the support she has provided and the work she has done on the infected blood inquiry? It is no exaggeration to say that she has been instrumental in achieving what has been achieved so far—there is still a lot to do, of course. In answer to her question, of course it would be the wish of everyone concerned to involve the bereaved as much as possible. Baroness Hallett, a Cross-Bench peer, will have command and control of this matter, if I can put it that way, just as Sir Brian Langstaff does in the infected blood inquiry. I am sure that all concerned will have heard what the right hon. Lady has had to say.

[Mr Speaker]

We are going to topicals early, so there will be a great opportunity to get more people in. Let us start with David Simmonds.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

T6. Does the Paymaster General, as a former Law Officer, agree that there is a fatal flaw in our system when the person who ultimately makes judgment on the ministerial code is a Prime Minister who is at the centre of allegations of breaking the law and misleading the House? Does it not go against all the rules of natural justice to be judge and jury in your own case?

[The Paymaster General (Michael Ellis)]

Well, natural justice also requires something on which to impose justice and as yet we do not have any result from the inquiry, so, if I may say so, the right hon. Member is putting the cart before the horse. I would say that the Prime Minister is a man of integrity, as I have said before, and the ministerial code has always been under the purview of the Prime Minister since it was created.

[Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)]

I want to thank my right hon. Friend and the noble Lord Agnew who, with the Cabinet Office and the Home Office, have managed to bring more than 500 brand-new jobs to the city of Stoke-on-Trent as well as further investment in developing a site. Will he update the House on progress for the Stoke-on-Trent relocation and on the wider move that is taking civil servants out across our United Kingdom?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

Can I give a bit of friendly advice to the Paymaster General, who has been valiantly defending the indefensible? When the ship is about to sail, you jump on it because it is leaving without you. The ministerial code matters, standards in public life matter and trust in politics matters. The case against the Prime Minister is clear. Why is the Paymaster General destroying his own integrity to save a man who has none?

[Michael Ellis]

It is very kind of the hon. Gentleman to be concerned about my position and I am very grateful to him. My position is clear: the Prime Minister answers to the people of this country and to this House. He came to the House yesterday, at Prime Minister’s questions, and he apologised. He has said—and I agree—that we should wait until the result of the investigation that is in progress. That would be the case with any individual facing any allegation anywhere in this country. One waits until due process is complete. The hon. Gentleman ought to accept that that would be the case, whether that view comes from his party, my party or anywhere else.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

Despite the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster’s words at the Dispatch Box, the reality is that his Cabinet colleagues yesterday were calling the Scottish Conservative leader a “lightweight” and irrelevant because he was up in Elgin. Is it not the case that there has never been a Union of equals? It is always “Scotland, know your place,” and that was demonstrated yesterday.

Oral Answers to Questions

Michael Ellis Excerpts

Thursday 25th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

3. If he will make an assessment of the implications for his policies of the findings of Transparency International’s report, “Track and Trace”, published April 2021.

[The Paymaster General (Michael Ellis)]

The Government recognise the importance of maintaining public confidence in how we manage taxpayers’ money. We are taking steps to improve the processes already in place and to ensure that public spending is fair and transparent. Proposals in our December 2020 Green Paper aim to improve transparency in procurement across the public sector and include specific measures to strengthen transparency through the commercial lifecycle from planning to procurement, contract award, performance and completion. We will publish our response to the consultation shortly.

[Nick Smith]

Test and Trace has been muddled and expensive. Along with personal protective equipment provision, it has been a profiteers’ paradise for some. After inflation, NHS workers got no pay rise, yet Deloitte’s partners got 14%. We need answers: who did what and for how much? Does the Minister agree that the terms of reference for the covid public inquiry should include an analysis of the super-profits and juicy contracts for middlemen that have undoubtedly been made, so that the public can consider what opportunists have enjoyed at all our expense?

[Michael Ellis]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the National Audit Office noted that it

“found that the ministers had properly declared their interests, and…found no evidence of their involvement in procurement decisions or contract management.”

No PPE contracts were awarded by reason of who referred them. Clearly, in a national emergency, it is right that we as a nation can procure at speed. That ability has been critical in providing the emergency response that was needed. Those mechanisms predate the pandemic; they were not created for the pandemic. The public are right to demand that we spend our money with car—and, unlike Labour Governments, we do that. Proposals in the Green Paper on reforming public procurement aim to improve transparency, and we will continue to do that.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

Transparency International’s report identified 73 covid contracts that raised red flags for corruption. Last week, after 18 months of deflection and secrecy, the list of the companies awarded contracts through the VIP lane was finally revealed. We can see now why it was kept secret.

It is curious that, of the recommendations from politicians to that list, only the recommendations of Conservatives—no other political party—were successful. Of the 47 companies awarded contracts worth £4.7 billion, 18—more than a third—were referred by Tory MPs, Ministers or peers. Can the Minister confirm that anti-fraud and conflict of interest checks really did take place for all the contracts in the VIP lane? If there were another emergency tomorrow, would the system still be jobs for mates, or is a new and better one ready?

[Michael Ellis]

Of course, the hon. Lady is conveniently forgetting that Labour Members of Parliament also recommended individuals and companies as far as PPE is concerned, and there is nothing wrong with that. There was a national emergency at the time, and everyone was asked to assist, and if they knew someone who might have been able to assist in supplying personal protective equipment, they were invited to say so. Not only is there nothing wrong with that, but it was a public service to do so. The National Audit Office has already looked at this, and it has said there was no evidence of involvement in procurement decisions or contract management.

I realise there is a political wish on the part of the Labour party to try to make something of this, but actually this is a matter of public service. It is right that proper due diligence is carried out on contracts, and that is why the information is available to the public and to the Opposition to have a look at Government contracts. That has always happened, and it will continue to happen. The Government take these checks extremely seriously, and we are being extremely transparent, but it is also absolutely essential that, in an emergency, we can procure at speed.

[Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)]

4. What steps he is taking to consult with covid-19 bereaved families on the public inquiry into the Government’s handling of the covid-19 pandemic.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

13. What steps he is taking to consult with covid-19 bereaved families on the public inquiry into the Government’s handling of the covid-19 pandemic.

[The Paymaster General (Michael Ellis)]

I am pleased to reiterate that the Prime Minister has already confirmed that bereaved families and others will be consulted on the covid inquiry’s terms of reference before they are finalised and that the inquiry will be established on a statutory basis with full formal powers.

[Kate Osamor]

The University of Liverpool this week released a report on the lived experience of those who have lost a loved one to covid-19, in collaboration with Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice. The report recommends that the public inquiry be brought forward without delay, stresses the importance of transparency and asks for bereaved families to be an integral part of the inquiry. Is it not about time that the Government listen to the bereaved families of covid-19 victims and adopt the report’s recommendations?

[Michael Ellis]

I thank the hon. Member for her question, and may I take this opportunity to express my condolences and sympathy to all of the many bereaved families who have suffered as a result of the pandemic? The Prime Minister announced in Parliament as early as May this year—on 12 May—that the inquiry into the pandemic would be established on a formal statutory basis, with all the requisite powers that go with that, under the Inquiries Act 2005. A chair of the inquiry will be announced by the end of this year, and the Prime Minister told the bereaved families group that in a meeting he had with them on 28 September. It is important that formal powers will be attached to the inquiry, and everything will be done to make sure the relevant material and oral evidence, for example, is given under oath.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

The Prime Minister refused to meet bereaved families for nearly 400 days. When he eventually deigned to meet them in September, he promised them they would have a role in setting the terms of reference for the inquiry. Yesterday, these grieving families wrote to the Prime Minister asking why, yet again, they are being ignored. Can the Minister explain to them why they are being ignored?

[Michael Ellis]

As I just said, the Prime Minister met Bereaved Families for Justice on 28 September. He welcomed the opportunity to hear directly from them, and of course the areas they would like the inquiry to cover were mentioned. The importance of choosing the right chair was also mentioned. All commitments made to the Bereaved Families for Justice group will be met. The chair of the inquiry will be appointed by Christmas, and bereaved families and others will be consulted on the terms of reference before they are finalised.

[Catherine West]

This Christmas, many constituents of Members across the House will sit where they normally are, but their loved one will not be with them. Indeed, for some people it is two years, isn’t it? Could I press the Minister on announcing the chair, or having the Prime Minister announce the chair, not on Christmas eve, because that will wreck Christmas? As the end of the year is nearly here, could he speed that up, just for their sake?

[Michael Ellis]

I hear the hon. Lady’s question and absolutely recognise the importance of the matter. It is also of course important to go through the proper processes in selecting possible chairs, appointing one and so on. I know this will be given the considerable importance it deserves, and as I said, it will be disclosed before the end of the year.

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

For the covid-19 bereaved families two things matter above all: that the inquiry begins as soon as possible, with the families at its heart; and that the national covid memorial wall opposite Parliament must be preserved. The Government have indicated that they support a national memorial at St Paul’s cathedral instead, but this is not an either/or choice and the families’ agony must end. Both memorials deserve their place: will the Minister therefore support the bereaved families’ request to preserve the memorial wall, because it is their wall, their memories, their love?

[Michael Ellis]

The Government recognise the need for bereaved families to have a location, or locations, where the representation will take place, and of course there is a UK commission on covid commemoration, as the hon. Gentleman knows. It will carefully consider how communities across the country can remember those who have lost their lives due to this appalling pandemic, and recognise those involved in the response as well, in a fitting and permanent way. So there is a specific UK commission on covid commemoration, and we should let it do its job.

[David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)]

5. What steps he is taking to help ensure the resilience of supply chains.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

9. What steps his Department is taking to support other Departments to tackle backlogs resulting from the covid-19 outbreak.

[The Paymaster General (Michael Ellis)]

As we come out of the crisis phase of the covid response, the Government have put the recovery of public services at the heart of their building back better and levelling-up agenda, and we have already laid the foundation for recovery. Earlier this year, in the 2021-22 spending review, the Government allocated £55 billion to the public sector through key initiatives such as the £1 billion elective recovery fund, the £30 billion plan for jobs, £3 billion in education recovery, the £4.8 billion levelling-up fund, and almost half a billion pounds in criminal justice system recovery. This work continues at pace across Government, and the Cabinet Office continues to work closely with Departments as they all build the world-class public services the UK deserves.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Paymaster General for that excellent answer, and I thank the Government for all they have done for business and for every sector through the pandemic; it is much appreciated.

I want to ask specifically about education. Will the Paymaster General outline whether additional education funding, above the £3 billion that he referred to, has been considered to bring some of our children back to where they should be? I am very concerned, as all in the House are, about the education of children. How, specifically, can we ensure that the children who have lost out can still catch up and have time to do so?

[Michael Ellis]

As is so often the case, the hon. Gentleman is so right in his focus on education. Of course, the Government recognise the importance of education for all our young people, at primary, secondary and tertiary level. That recognition manifests itself in the extra funding that the Government have supplied, through the Department for Education, to the education sector. There is the £3 billion education recovery fund, and I will be very happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with more details about the breakdown of those sums.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

10. What recent assessment the Government have made of the transparency of decisions taken by Government agencies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

16. When he plans to end the use of emergency procurement powers during the covid-19 outbreak.

[The Paymaster General (Michael Ellis)]

Existing procurement rules, which predate covid-19, rightly allow the Government to procure at speed in times of an emergency. The rules are not new and it is for contracting authorities to make their own determinations on when to use them. At the beginning of the pandemic, we issued guidance to set out the options available to Government Departments to buy at pace, bearing in mind the legal framework for procurement. We have since built on that with further guidance on the commercial risks inherent in direct awards. Our “Transforming Public Procurement” Green Paper sets out proposals to update the rules on procuring in times of extreme emergency or crisis, learning from the experience of the pandemic. We will be publishing our response to that consultation shortly.

[Helen Hayes]

The use of emergency procurement powers during the covid-19 pandemic has been a murky mess. The process has delivered multiple contracts to Tory party friends and donors, and hundreds of millions of pounds of public money has been spent on equipment that could not be used. The use of such powers might have been justified at the start of the pandemic, but 20 months on there is really no excuse for the continued use of accelerated procurement powers. It is now eight months since the consultation on the Green Paper closed and the Government still have not published a response. When will they end the use of emergency measures, and when will they clean up public procurement?

[Michael Ellis]

I do not accept the characterisation that the hon. Lady puts on the matter, and neither does the National Audit Office—it looked at this and said, as we have rehearsed in the Chamber, that it sees no evidence of the sort of the thing that she refers to. On emergency procurement, it is crucial in any society for the Government to be able to purchase items at emergency speed, for example if lives are to be saved as a consequence, or in other types of emergency. That is nothing new. The public interest was best served by being able to act quickly and decisively.

As for the point that the hon. Lady makes about the situation now, the public sector has reduced its use of regulation 32 powers—the emergency procurement powers. Their use peaked between April and June 2020 at the height of the initial wave of the pandemic. In central Government, the use of these powers has reduced by more than two thirds over the six months from April to September 2021 compared with the same period last year. The use of emergency contracts is rapidly declining.

[Mr Speaker]

We come now to topical questions; we will have quite a few free hits today, as we are moving on to them rather early.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

T2. Let us return to some of the Tory treasurers who are now Lords and look at their performance. Lord Harris of Peckham has spoken just eight times in the Chamber since being appointed in 1996. Lord Kalms has made seven spoken contributions since 2004. Lord Lupton is prolific, with 10 contributions since 2015. Is that not further proof that it was their donations and party position that got them into the Lords?

[The Paymaster General (Michael Ellis)]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not recognise quality over quantity. I think he ought to spend a little more time reading House of Lords Hansard; he would see a world-beating range of expertise on myriad issues. The House of Lords is a House of experts and he should spend more time listening to its debates.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

T6. This Government have spent more taxpayers’ money than any previous Government on public opinion polling. Over the past 16 months since July 2020, I have asked the Government to publish the polling carried out at the start of the covid-19 pandemic. They refused to release that information under the Freedom of Information Act, claiming that it was still being used to develop policy; the Information Commissioner struck down that defence as incorrect.The Government then claimed that it was too costly to release, so I asked written parliamentary questions on the subject. They again refused, using the excuse that polling is still developing policy; as the Information Commissioner pointed out, that is a bogus argument. Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster change the policy on the matter today to ensure that the information is released immediately and that the Cabinet Office acts in line with both the letter and the spirit of the legislation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Talking of which, I call Michael Ellis.

[Michael Ellis]

I do indeed agree. The fact is that the Labour party wishes to make cheap political points when in reality the House of Lords provides expert service to the nation, and does so extremely inexpensively compared to the second chambers in most western democracies.

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

T5.   It is hardly a cheap point when it is about expensive donations. More than two years since the first request, and more than a month since a judge refused the Government leave to appeal against the first-tier tribunal ruling, the Cabinet Office is yet to reveal the results and the details of its clandestine secret polling about Scottish attitudes to independence and the Union. Could a Minister—any Minister: I am not fussy—tell us when this information will be revealed, and what exactly it is that they are so scared of the Scottish people finding out?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)]

It is completely fair for us in the SNP to raise concerns over Lords in an unelected position who have just happened to give significant sums to the Conservative party. With the entry requirements for the UK’s retirement home for failed Tory MPs or Tories who cannot win elections—otherwise known as the Lords—coming under increasing scrutiny, attention should be paid to the fact that that unelected institution is bigger than the UK’s elected Parliament in the Commons. Does the Minister not agree that having an unelected, crony-stuffed second Chamber undermines the UK’s ability not only to claim to be a functioning democracy but to lecture others on their own democracies?

[Michael Ellis]

As we have already discussed in this Chamber, the House of Lords provides expert counsel and excellent value for money. If the hon. Lady wishes to compare the cost of the House of Lords to the public expenditure with other second Chambers in bicameral legislatures, she will find that it is extremely inexpensive and extremely expert, and that it provides excellent value for money. She characterises it in one way, but she forgets that it also provides a service to all sections of our society, including those in the medical profession, the legal profession, the military service and across the range of society, and it will continue to do so.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

May I welcome the recent appointment of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to his new role in co-ordinating efforts across the Government to tackle the cross-channel migrant crisis? In that role, will he persuade officials in his own Department, as well as those in the Foreign Office and the Home Department, to come up with constructive solutions that can be effectively deployed, rather than coming up with reasons why something cannot be done?

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster at least agree that any Member of Parliament whose gross misconduct has led to their being ejected from this place through a recall petition, or anyone who chooses to leave rather than face a recall petition, should not be considered a fit and proper person to be elevated to the Lords?

[Michael Ellis]

It is up to this House to regulate its disciplinary affairs. Of course, this House has done so and, under your leadership, Mr Speaker, will no doubt continue to do so.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)]

I have previously written to the Minister for Defence People and Veterans about the delay that one of my constituents has experienced while waiting for a decision on his military pension. Will the Minister please look into this case and ensure that my constituent does not wait any longer than the year that has already elapsed since his application?

Oral Answers to Questions

Michael Ellis Excerpts

Thursday 23rd September 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Paymaster General (Michael Ellis)]

Mr Speaker, I add my congratulations about Chorley. I look forward to seeing your cameo appearance on “Coronation Street”, perhaps with Speaker Pelosi.

Following his appointment, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is now responsible for this policy. As I think the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) knows, in Northern Ireland there has been a requirement for photographic identification at polling stations since 2003, and it operates with ease and is a proven and effective way of tackling fraud. It has improved voter confidence in Northern Ireland, and everyone who is eligible to vote will continue to have the opportunity to do so.

[Kirsten Oswald]

According to the Electoral Reform Society, around 2.1 million people risk not being able to vote in a general election due to not having recognisable photo ID. The Government’s own data shows that significantly fewer people from black and minority ethnic communities are likely to have photo ID. Similarly, it is likely to be a disproportionate barrier for other minority and marginalised groups, including disabled people and homeless people.

The Paymaster General says his intention is to reduce voter fraud, but in 2019 there was just one conviction in the UK for voter impersonation. Does he not see that needlessly dampening participation in democratic processes by already excluded groups, and at significant cost to the taxpayer, will simply shut down the voices that we should most hear?

[Michael Ellis]

I am happy to offer the hon. Lady some reassurance. Ninety-eight per cent. of the electorate already own an accepted form of photographic identification, including 99% of black, Asian and minority ethnic electors and 99% of young electors aged 18 to 29. The Electoral Commission’s survey on this matter offers reassurance because the majority of the public say that a requirement to show identification when voting at polling stations would make them more confident, and 66% of people want more confidence in the security of the system. She really ought to read the 2015 Tower Hamlets election court judgment, where she will see the nature of the problem at hand.

[Mr Speaker]

Geraint Davies. Not here.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

I strongly support what the Paymaster General has said, and I welcome the team to their positions.

When I had responsibility for these matters, I visited and spoke to the electoral officials in Northern Ireland, which has had this system for 18 years and where it works perfectly well. People in Northern Ireland are perfectly capable of using it, and I have no doubt that it will be a great success when we roll it out in the rest of the United Kingdom. Frankly, these scare stories are more likely to depress voter turnout than the introduction of voter ID.

[Michael Ellis]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, as usual. Any eligible voter who does not have one of the required forms of ID—and there are very few of them—would be able to apply for a free local voter card from their local authority. As he says, this has been working extremely well in Northern Ireland, which in fact has had an ID requirement since 1985—it is the photographic ID requirement it has had since 2003. So the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) is perpetuating scare stories here.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that we detect more than a whiff of hypocrisy from Opposition parties, which oppose voter ID but would ask their own members to show ID to attend a meeting to discuss the issue itself?

[Michael Ellis]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I understand that the Labour party does make those requirements, not that I have attended Labour conferences of course. May I offer the further reassurance that a wide range of countries, including most European countries, require some form of ID? Canada, France, Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Norway do. So I have to say that the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire ought to refrain from these repeated scare tactics, which may have a deleterious effect on voter turnout.

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

European countries that do require voter ID often have national ID cards, and if that is the Government’s intention, they should be a little more straightforward about it.

My question to the Minister is specifically about the human rights aspects of this. The Elections Public Bill Committee has been warned that this policy may be in breach of human rights. It quizzed Gavin Millar QC, who said that there will

“inevitably be challenges to this as incompatible with the European convention on human rights”.––[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, 16 September 2021; c. 109, Q165.]

I draw the Minister’s attention to article 1, protocol 1. What legal advice have the Government had that makes them so sure that this policy is not in contravention of our human rights laws?

[Michael Ellis]

Of course we do not discuss legal advice, but what I can say is that people also have a human right not to have their votes stolen. In 2019, the Electoral Commission found nearly 600 allegations of electoral fraud. They had to be investigated by the police, and 142 of them were related to alleged voting offences. So this is a problem, and it needs to be dealt with. This was a Government manifesto commitment and we intend to follow through.

[Cat Smith]

My question was specifically about how this legislation is compatible with human rights laws, so may I invite the Minister to publish the legal advice his Government will have received in the Library of the House of Commons, so that all Members, especially those on the Bill Committee, which is currently sitting, can be confident that this legislation is not in breach of human rights law?

[Michael Ellis]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for her repeated question, but she well knows that successive Governments, from both sides of the House, do not publish legal advice, and there is a good reason for that. But she can be assured that this Government are very focused on protecting the human rights of all, and that includes those who have been subject to personation, where their votes have been taken by someone else. That is also a human right that we seek to protect, and we will continue to do so.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

Some 90% of the public think that polling station voting is safe from fraud and abuse, and they are right to think that. Personation, which is the only problem the voter ID provisions of the Elections Bill are designed to address, resulted in a single conviction in 2016, 2017 and 2019, and zero convictions in 2018. Given that up to 3.5 million people may not have suitable ID and that the Government’s pilots confirmed that up to 324,000 people would be denied a vote in a Great Britain election, let me ask the simple question: why are this Government prepared to embark on voter suppression on an industrial scale?

[Michael Ellis]

I am surprised by the right hon. Gentleman, because it is not just a question of convictions: attempts to commit crimes are also wrongs. We have to focus on reducing the criminality in this area. It is also about voters having confidence that they are not going to be subject to personation and confidence to go and vote because they know there is no interference in the voting system. Some 66%—two thirds and more—of those questioned said that they would like to see increased security around voting. In this day and age, that is increasingly important, and the right hon. Gentleman ought to recognise that, too.

[Stewart Hosie]

On the matter of confidence, the House of Commons Library has rather helpfully told us that half the public think there is inadequate regulation of political party spending and that only 14% think there is transparency around it. The Paymaster General knows perfectly well that there have been concerns about the influence of dark money in the UK electoral system for many years. Why could it be that this Government are planning to suppress the right of ordinary people to vote rather than tackle the real problem of dark money buying influence in the democratic process?

[Michael Ellis]

These bold assertions have no basis in evidence or reality and have a tendency to do exactly what the right hon. Gentleman claims to seek to avoid, which is to suppress votes. He wishes to focus on a lack of regulation in respect of voting confidence. We seek—our manifesto commitment on this has been, and will continue to be, followed through on—to protect the voting system, and we do that in the same way as has happened in all the countries I have mentioned: by increasing confidence in the system.

[Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)]

6. What steps he is taking to help ensure that the use of fire and rehire tactics in (a) the public sector and (b) public funded bodies is not permitted.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)]

17. What steps he is taking to help ensure that the use of fire and rehire tactics in (a) the public sector and (b) public funded bodies is not permitted.

[The Paymaster General (Michael Ellis)]

Public sector bodies and employers are responsible for the management of their respective workforces. The Government have made it clear to all employers, and I wish to do so again now—including to those in the public sector—that the use of threats to fire and rehire people to pressure workers during negotiations is unacceptable.

[Kate Osborne]

I thank the Paymaster General for his response, but given the increasing prevalence of outsourcing throughout the public sector, where we have seen the creation of a two-tier workforce and a race to the bottom on pay and conditions, does he agree that no company that is found to be using fire and rehire tactics against its workers should be awarded public contracts or be allowed to take over public services in future?

[Michael Ellis]

I challenge the premise of the hon. Lady’s question. The UK has the best employment rights in the world. This Government have banned the exclusivity clauses in zero-hours contracts, and we introduced the national living wage in 2016 and the right to a day-one statement of rights for all workers in 2020. This Government—this party—are protecting the rights of workers and have established some of the best employment rights in the whole world.

Nevertheless, the point that the hon. Lady makes is recognised, and we have asked the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service to look into the matter. We want to ensure that there is clearer guidance to help employers to explore all the options before they consider what one or two have been doing in respect of the fire and rehire policy. We are interested in maintaining and encouraging good employment relations. I cannot be clearer than what I have already said, which is that we think it is unacceptable to pressure workers in such a way during negotiations.

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank the Paymaster General for his response, but during the pandemic I was contacted by many constituents in Vauxhall who were subject to this practice—constituents who had worked for many years for the likes of British Airways and British Gas; constituents whose lives were turned upside-down by the threat that they would lose their jobs. The Paymaster General said that he will put pressure on the organisations involved, but the pressure is not working, so will he give his full support to the private Member’s Bill that has its Second Reading on 22 October and would ban fire and rehire once and for all?

[Michael Ellis]

I am aware of the private Member’s Bill to which the hon. Lady referred. At this stage, I will say that the Government will respond to that Bill as it passes through Parliament. As I say, we have been clear that fire and rehire should not be used in the way the hon. Lady describes, or as a negotiating tactic, which is why we have asked ACAS to look carefully at the matter and to produce guidance. We will continue to keep the issue under review.

[Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)]

I have noticed the change in personnel on the Cabinet Office Front Bench and I would like to welcome all the Ministers to their place today. I also welcome the Prime Minister’s direction on fire and rehire, which is that he does not accept this bullying practice, but when will the Government take action on this? I accept the Minister’s response on ACAS, but this is just not good enough. If the Minister is committed to having good employment practices, what will he do to end this practice of fire and rehire? I reiterate that he can back the private Member’s Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), which will see the practice ended by this Parliament.

[Michael Ellis]

We are keeping the private Member’s Bill of the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) under review. I think the hon. Lady knows that, when it comes to protecting the rights of workers, this Government have been doing just that. I ask her to bear in mind the protected earnings for furloughed workers, the review into how employers can support victims of domestic violence in the workplace, and Jack’s law. There are myriad ways in which we have been protecting workers and their rights. We keep a laser-beam focus on that, and we will continue to do so.

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

8. What recent assessment the Government have made of the effectiveness of the operation of the Northern Ireland protocol.

[The Paymaster General (Michael Ellis)]

As we set out in our July command paper, the protocol is not meeting its core objectives as it stands; it is causing considerable disruption to lives and livelihoods. That is why we need to find a new balance through significant changes to the Northern Ireland protocol and we are working intensively to that end.

[Ruth Jones]

Given that both the US and the EU have expressed serious concerns and reservations about the current practical arrangement regarding the Northern Ireland protocol, is the Minister not concerned about this protocol that his Prime Minister negotiated as part of his Brexit plan? The deal may have been oven ready, but did someone forget to turn the gas on?

[Michael Ellis]

We have tried to operate the protocol in good faith, but the problems are significant and they are growing. The hon. Lady should be concerned about the fact that the Northern Ireland Executive noted that, from January to March, about 20% of all of the European Union’s checks were being conducted in respect of Northern Ireland, even though Northern Ireland’s population is just 0.5% of the EU as a whole. It is unacceptable, and those are the sort of problems on which she ought to focus.

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

9. What steps the Government are taking to increase opportunities for small businesses to bid for Government contracts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

10. What recent assessment his Department has made of the progress of the infected blood inquiry.

[The Paymaster General (Michael Ellis)]

The Government remain committed to fully supporting the infected blood inquiry. The inquiry maintained pace throughout lockdown, I am pleased to say, and it is making good progress. The hearings restarted this week. The inquiry will continue to hear evidence about blood services and pharmaceutical companies until the end of this year. I take this opportunity to thank the right hon. Lady because I know that she has been doing sterling work in this area, and I wish to commend her for that. Please allow me also to commend my predecessor as Paymaster General, my right hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), who also worked hard in this area.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I welcome the Minister to his new post. May I also join him in thanking the previous Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), for all that she did to ensure that the cause of those infected and affected by the contaminated blood scandal was at the heart of the work she carried out?

As the Paymaster General said, we are three years into the NHS infected blood inquiry, and at the start of the new review into compensation for those infected and affected. Will he say something, though, about what is happening to the bereaved partner payments that were announced in March, and about whether he is willing to look at the inconsistencies that still apply to bereaved partners and their families?

[Michael Ellis]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her remarks, particularly about my predecessor. The previous Paymaster General announced in March this year changes to the four national financial support schemes to bring them into broader parity. That means increasing annual payments and lump sums where necessary to bring them up to the highest existing levels. The right hon. Lady knows better than anyone that there is an independent statutory inquiry, chaired by former High Court judge Sir Brian Langstaff. The issue of compensation is being looked at by Sir Robert Francis QC. I look forward to correspondence with her and hope to be able to go into more detail on the matter in due course.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

How much compensation has been paid, and to how many families?

[Michael Ellis]

The matter is currently under consideration. Sir Robert Francis QC is conducting a compensation study, which will consider options for a framework of compensation when the inquiry reports. I can say this: the public consultation on the terms of reference for that study has concluded; the terms of reference were signed off by me in the last couple of days; and they will be published later today in a written ministerial statement.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

11. What recent assessment his Department has made of the effect of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU on opportunities for UK businesses.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

16. What recent assessment his Department has made of the effect of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU on opportunities for UK businesses.

[The Paymaster General (Michael Ellis)]

Our exit from the European Union has given us the freedom to conceive and implement rules that put UK businesses first. Only last week, the Government announced further reforms to reduce burdens on businesses, which I am sure the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) and her party will welcome, to help unleash innovation and propel economic growth across the whole United Kingdom. The Government’s action to seize the opportunities of Brexit is already having an impact, as she well knows. The International Monetary Fund is expecting the United Kingdom to see the fastest GDP growth in the G7 this year—something about which the entire House can be proud.

[Patricia Gibson]

Back here on planet Earth, rather than a sea of opportunity we are drowning in Brexit despair, as the Scottish food and drink sector is sacrificed on the altar of this hard Tory Brexit, at a cost of £2 billion on pre-pandemic levels, with extensive trade barriers, extra red tape, labour shortages and damage to Brand Scotland. Industry figures are warning that they will not come close to making up the EU market losses. How do the UK Government plan to mitigate the damage that they have caused to Scotland’s economy?

[Michael Ellis]

Our exit from the European Union provides us with positives, although I know that the hon. Lady and her party wish to focus on negatives. The relentless negativity of the Scottish nationalists really is a wonder to behold. The fact of the matter is that the opportunity to think boldly about how we regulate gives us the freedom to conceive and implement rules that will put the United Kingdom—all constituent parts of the United Kingdom, including Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England—first.

[Joanna Cherry]

A major export business in my constituency is in the process of relocating to an EU member state, taking with it scores of highly skilled jobs. As a result of Brexit, it has faced massive delays for shipments and EU member states preventing their public authorities from procuring from it. The rest of its export market has been killed off because of shocking delays by the UK’s Export Control Joint Unit. Despite numerous correspondences and meetings with Ministers, I have not been able to get those delays reduced. Minister, here is the evidence from my constituency of Edinburgh South West, in Scotland. The UK Government are strangling thriving businesses in Scotland. What should I tell my constituents?

[Michael Ellis]

What the hon. and learned Lady ought to tell her constituents is that we have, thanks to global Britain, established a new points-based immigration system on migration, and we are replacing the common agricultural policy. She can tell them that we are taking back control of our territorial waters. She can tell them that we have been striking bilateral trade agreements with 60 countries so far, with more on the way. She can tell them all those things and they will then no doubt be voting Conservative.

[Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)]

I apologise that this is a rather detailed question, but a few businesses in my constituency are having issues with specifics on rules of origin. Will my right hon. and learned Friend update the House as to the willingness of the EU to sit down and iron out these anomalies?

[Michael Ellis]

The trade and co-operation agreement provides for zero tariffs and zero-quota trade with the EU while also allowing us to regulate in a way that suits the UK economy and our businesses without being bound by EU rules. The trade and co-operation agreement includes appropriate rules of origin, as my hon. Friend mentions, to support tariff-free trade across all sectors.

[Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)]

12. What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on implementing the Government’s levelling-up agenda.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

T6. People in fishing communities will have been interested to hear the Paymaster General assert earlier that we are taking back control of our territorial waters. May I invite him to clarify that? When he says territorial waters, does he mean water up to the 6-mile, 12-mile or 200-mile limit?

[The Paymaster General (Michael Ellis)]

I think the right hon. Gentleman knows full well what is meant by British territorial waters, and I invite him to accept that it is this Government who do everything they need to do, and they will continue to protect our territorial waters.

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

T8. Will the Minister agree to meet me and my constituent Thomas Leigh, a veteran who was seriously injured during his service in the armed forces, to discuss Mr Leigh’s very serious concerns about the inadequacy of the compensation available for long-term back injuries sustained by servicemen?

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)]

T9. I listened with interest to the non-answers given to my hon. Friends earlier, and I wonder whether any more light could be shed on why this Government are so intent on applying a pre-crime approach, on thinking that people might try to commit voter identity fraud, and on suppressing millions, yet ignoring the actual evidence of dark money and large donations to political parties. Can more light be shed on exactly why they are taking that approach?

[Michael Ellis]

I invite the hon. Gentleman to read the court’s judgement in the 2015 Tower Hamlets case, and he will find out exactly the nature of the problem that the Government are seeking to redress. We will redress other problems as and when they become necessary.

[Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)]

May I commend the Government on their plans to move civil service jobs out of London? In welcoming my right hon. Friend to his position, may I invite him to visit Darlington and see the progress that has been made with the delivery of jobs in the Treasury, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and other Departments, which is real evidence of our levelling-up agenda?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)]

I have been contacted by bereaved constituents who have lost their loved ones to covid-19, and I would like to pay tribute to all those families in Liverpool, West Derby today in this Chamber. My constituents want answers, and they should not have had to battle with the Government at every stage to secure the covid-19 inquiry. In his new role, will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster make a commitment, here and now, to prioritising the bereaved families, meeting Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice as a matter of urgency to discuss the terms of reference of the inquiry, and ensuring that the families get the truth and justice they deserve?

[Michael Ellis]

Every death from this virus is a tragedy, and our deepest sympathies are with everyone who has lost loved ones. The Government remain steadfast in our commitment to ensuring that the families of whom the hon. Gentleman has spoken have the scrutiny of the Government’s response to managing the pandemic that they deserve. The Prime Minister made it very clear in his statement to this House on 12 May that bereaved families and others will be consulted on the inquiry’s terms of reference before they are finalised. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to write to me for more information, I will be happy to respond.