Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to face the right hon. Gentleman across the Dispatch Box for what I believe is the first time. I am pleased to see three members of the Cabinet on the Front Bench—it is quite right that the Cabinet Office should be so well reflected.

The day after he entered Downing Street, the Prime Minister pledged to personally chair each mission delivery board to drive through change. We now hear that he is not chairing each mission delivery board. Why has the Prime Minister broken his pledge?

[Pat McFadden]

Let me begin by welcoming the hon. Gentleman to his position; I look forward to our exchanges. He is also the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, so I hope his party leader will be giving him a Christmas bonus for productivity and hard work—he will certainly deserve it.

The Prime Minister is very engaged in the delivery of these missions, and meets for missions stocktakes regularly with the Secretaries of State in charge. That is the benefit of having this kind of programme: the Prime Minister can personally hold Secretaries of State to account and ensure they are all focused on delivery of the Government’s priorities.

[Alex Burghart]

The right hon. Gentleman is right: as the holder of two shadow portfolios, I get double the money. [Laughter.] I am sorry not to hear an explanation for why the Prime Minister has gone back on his word. There are growing concerns that the mission delivery boards are not being taken seriously. Those concerns were felt by members of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee yesterday, when the right hon. Gentleman’s very capable permanent secretary said that

“the governance and the wiring of how we do this might not be immediately observable”,

which is a masterful piece of civil service phraseology if ever there was one.

These boards are not Cabinet Sub-Committees, which means they are not authorised to make policy. The Prime Minister is not there, so his authority is absent. The Government will not reveal who is on them, what they discuss or when they meet. They are starting to sound like figments of the Government’s imagination—a litter of Schrödinger’s cats. Will the right hon. Gentleman at least commit to regular published updates on what each of the boards is doing, who sits on them, what decisions they make, what work they are undertaking and what achievements they have achieved?

[Pat McFadden]

The hon. Gentleman is going to get a published update in a couple of hours, when he will receive a very full account of what the boards have been doing, how they have been prioritising their work and what the next steps are. He is a former Cabinet Office Minister, so he will know that one of the wonderful things about the Cabinet Office is that it does a great deal of work under the bonnet—sometimes not in the full gaze of publicity—and that that is the privilege of all of us who have served in the Cabinet Office. That is true of this work. However, we are publishing a very important update later this morning.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

Was the Cabinet Office’s propriety and ethics team informed by Downing Street of the former Transport Secretary’s conviction before she was appointed as a Minister of the Crown?

[Pat McFadden]

The former Transport Secretary had exchanges with the Prime Minister last week, which have resulted in her resigning from the post. She set out her reasons for her resignation in that letter. We now have a new Transport Secretary, who has already made an excellent start in the job.

[Alex Burghart]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for restating what is already known. Obviously, it is a matter of public interest whether the propriety and ethics team had been informed before the right hon. Lady was made Transport Secretary. I ask him again: will he confirm whether the PET was informed by Downing Street of the former Transport Secretary’s conviction before she was appointed a Minister of the Crown?

[Pat McFadden]

All Cabinet Ministers have an interview and make declarations to the propriety and ethics team before they are appointed to the Government. I am aware of what I told the propriety and ethics team before my appointment, but I do not look through the declarations from every other Minister.

Plan for Change: Milestones for Mission-led Government

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for advance sight of his statement. It was very nice to receive it only 12 hours after The Times, although I must say that I received the policy document itself only at 11.05 am, unlike Labour MPs at Pinewood studios who, according to social media, had the document some time before. While the Prime Minister is at Pinewood, I hope he will hear its owner’s concerns about the very substantial increase in business rates from 2026, which will affect the profits and viability of what was, under the Conservatives, a flourishing sector.

The Opposition congratulate the Government on their most recent reset—there are only a few more resets left before Christmas. The Labour party might want to try turning it off and, well, maybe just leaving it off, but it is good that it has taken the time to come up with an emergency list of priorities. After only 14 years in opposition and five months in power, it has finally decided on some things that it is going to work towards.

The statement was quite punchy about the past, unusually punchy for the right hon. Gentleman. If he is rattled, and he is not the rattling type, it is a sign that the Government must be feeling pretty unstable at the moment. Labour Members talk about legacy, and I wish them good fortune in government—I genuinely mean that.

The last Government had to clean up the mess from the greatest financial crisis in a century. The last Government had to deal with the biggest pandemic in a century. The last Government had to deal with the biggest war in Europe since 1945. [Interruption.] Labour Members might gloss over that, they might pretend it is not important, but history judges it very differently. It reflects very badly on the Labour party that it refuses to acknowledge the importance of those extremely significant events.

I will now turn to each of the new millstones in order.

First, raising living standards in every part of the United Kingdom so that working people have more money in their pockets, no matter where they live. How is this to be measured? What are the metrics? When will the data be published? Who will be held to account? We all need to know.

Secondly, building 1.5 million homes and fast-tracking planning decisions. The Office for Budget Responsibility has already said that this Government are very unlikely to build more homes than the last Conservative Government. What has changed since the Budget? Why do the Government now believe they will be able to achieve this? Is there more money? Have the spending plans changed?

Thirdly, tackling hospital backlogs. We have already seen funding first, reform later—a disastrous way to do business. NHS bosses have been briefed about this, and they are already briefing the press that this requirement will put enormous pressure on A&E without additional money beyond that given at the Budget. Is more money going to be made available for the NHS to fulfil this milestone?

Fourthly, policing. Only 3,000 of the 13,000 neighbourhood police officers are extra new police officers. This target is not genuine. Is there a proposal to deal with the backlog in the courts? Without that, extra police officers will lead only to greater backlog in the courts. Does the Labour party have a plan for this?

Fifthly, energy. In March, Labour’s missions document said that, by 2030, the UK would be the first major country in the world to run 100% on clean and cheap power. Since March, this has been degraded by 5%. Can we expect the target to be degraded by 5% every nine months?

Sixthly, getting children ready to learn. This is a genuinely wonderful target, but what does the right hon. Gentleman mean by “ready to learn”? How will it be measured? When will the House be told whether progress is being made?

Obviously, on all of these, there are good things to be done, but the missions will only mean anything if the Government are honest about what they are doing and about the milestones they are hitting or not hitting. Also, why have the Government downgraded certain other priorities? How have they chosen these six issues over immigration, over GP surgeries, over A&E, over defence, over the £300 energy bill reduction target or over becoming the fastest-growing economy in the G7? Why have the Government chosen these priorities? The House should be told.

Finally, who is taking responsibility—I mean real responsibility—for achieving the targets? A lot of us were pleased when, the other day, the Health Secretary said that individuals at the top of the health service would be held accountable with their jobs if targets were not hit. Will the same apply to Ministers? Who in Government is taking real responsibility for the targets? If the Government are serious, we need data, accountability and transparency. Will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee to the House that we will get that?

[Pat McFadden]

I have spent more of my life than I would have liked in opposition, and I learned one thing about being in opposition: one has to decide what one’s attack is. As I listened to the hon. Gentleman, I was not sure whether he supported or opposed the plan.

The hon. Gentleman refers to millstones. Let me tell him very clearly: the only millstone that this Government and this country have is the appalling legacy left by the Conservatives. Let us contrast what we are announcing today with their milestones of failure. They had record high waiting lists, the worst Parliament for living standards on record, a surrender on house building, a failure on infrastructure and a £22 billion hole in the public finances —those are their milestones of failure.

These are our choices today. The metrics by which we measure things are set out in the document before the House. The targets will make a real difference to people’s lives: higher living standards across the country, more housing, fewer people on NHS waiting lists, more community police and the best start in life for all children. That final metric is already measured when children start school at the age of five; under the hon. Gentleman’s Government, that metric fell, so our plan is to raise that, so that three out of four children can start school ready to learn. That is the measure that we will choose.

The truth is that the Conservatives could not tackle the challenges we have set out today, and they know it. They could not unblock the housing system or get the growth the country needs because they are the ones blocking the new housing and the infrastructure that we need. They could not fix the schools or the hospitals, or get more police on the streets, because they are still saying that they support the investment while opposing any revenue measure that pays for it, thereby sacrificing any reputation for economic competence that they had.

What a contrast. We will not subscribe to the fatalistic view that all we can look forward to is more of the kind of failure we saw over the past 14 years. We believe in setting out plans that will improve people’s lives, because we know that a united Government, with a clear sense of priorities, prepared to do the hard yards and make the difficult long-term choices for the country, can deliver a better future for people. That is what is set out in the plans we have published today.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 12th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ellie Reeves]

Previous attempts to reform the other place all in one go have failed. We want to see immediate reform of the other place, which is why we are getting on with this straightaway. We can then engage and consult on how best to deliver the other reforms, which we have set out clearly in our manifesto.

Alongside the Bill, the Leader of the House of Lords is engaging in dialogue with the other place on taking forward reforms to bring about a smaller and more active second Chamber. In fact, as we speak, she is leading a debate on that very subject in the other place. I look forward to further discussions on this matter in the House in due course, so that we get it right. None of the amendments that have been tabled contest the objective of the Bill to remove the right of people to sit and make laws in our legislature by virtue of an accident of birth. They should, therefore, not prevent us from making progress on this important and long overdue reform.

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

It is an honour to speak to the Bill in Committee. When we last discussed it, on Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden)—a very great man—set out why the Opposition do not approve of the way in which the Government are going about this change. We believe that this nervous little Bill is misconceived and perhaps, at its worst, dishonest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I am a bit worried about what my hon. Friend is saying. Why do we need a comprehensive plan at all? Why not just leave it alone? As that great conservative, Lord Falkland, once said, “When it is not necessary to do something, it is necessary not to do it.”

[Alex Burghart]

As ever, my right hon. Friend is one step ahead of me. It is not that we seek a comprehensive reform of the House of Lords. It is that the Labour party promised that this would come. The Government promised that they would leave the remaining hereditary peers there until they had a plan for comprehensive reform, but that comprehensive plan is missing. Labour is throwing out the stone in the shoe of the accepted hereditary peers and dodging the hard, principled questions about how to ensure that the House of Lords functions most effectively.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

My hon. Friend made a passing reference to a fear that what is going here is a form of gerrymandering. Does he agree that if generous provision were to be made for really active remaining hereditary Members, of whom there are probably quite a few, to be given life peerages on a one-off basis, and on the basis of merit, that would dispose of the suspicion of gerrymandering?

[Alex Burghart]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. He strikes at the critical failure of the legislation, which is that really the Government are seeking to remove Members of the upper House who happen not to take the Labour Whip. What we all agree on—or what I hope we all agree on—is that the role of the Lords is that of a chamber of scrutiny, and we must welcome more expert scrutiny. We have seen from the behaviour, attendance and work of hereditary peers that they are an intrinsic part of that scrutiny, so it is highly suspicious that the Labour party should seek to remove them. Indeed, if we set the precedent that the Government of the day can remove Members of one House because they do not agree with them, where will it end? Those Cross Bencher hereditary peers who will be axed by the measures have, as far as I can see, done an excellent job, yet they are not being given another way out such as that suggested by my right hon. Friend.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Gentleman will know that provisions in the 1999 Act stipulate a specific number of hereditary peers by party affiliation, making the Lords the only place where the party of a by-election victor is guaranteed before a vote has been cast. He is worried about a loss of expertise in the Lords as hereditary peers are expelled. If those peers stay—I do not think that they should—does he acknowledge that the ringfence protecting party political positions ought to be removed?

[Alex Burghart]

My point is more that the Government are seeking to remove highly experienced people without offering another way out. We would have been happy to debate that, but we are instead seeing an attempt to deliberately cut out a group of peers from the constitution.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the shadow Minister clarify his party’s position on House of Lords reform? We have heard two or three different views from the Conservative Benches. I remind him that, if we feel that hereditary peers are doing a good job, there is an opportunity for the leader of his party to give them life peerages.

[Alex Burghart]

It is very generous of the hon. Gentleman to say that the Prime Minister will create 40 peers at his command—I had no idea that the hon. Gentleman’s career was progressing at such a rate. We all know that that is not what is happening here; we all know that, in the coded words of the Minister, it is goodbye to the 88 hereditary peers, whose voices will not be heard any more. Our position is that it is time for a constitutional conference to consider these matters, and that the major issue is how to have an upper House that does not challenge the primacy of the Commons in conducting proper scrutiny of Government legislation in order to improve it.

[Sir John Hayes]

I am immensely grateful to my hon. Friend, who is making a speech in the spirit of his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden), on why the legislation does not pass the efficacy test that I set for it on Second Reading. There is no suggestion that it will make the House of Lords a more effective chamber. A reasonable test of the legislation is whether it improves the status quo. If it does not, why on earth are we pursuing it? Indeed, why are we even debating it?

[Alex Burghart]

As ever, wisdom from the Deepings. The truth is that this will not make the upper House a better Chamber for scrutiny. All it will do is remove some of the Labour party’s opponents from that House.

The Labour party promised in its manifesto that

“The next Labour government will…bring about an immediate modernisation”

of the Lords. The manifesto promised that that modernisation would consist of a mandatory retirement age of 80, a new participation requirement, a strengthening of

“the circumstances in which disgraced members can be removed”

from that House, reform of the appointments process, and improvement of

“the national and regional balance of the second chamber.”

Although we on the Conservative Benches might not agree with those proposals, the Labour party promised to introduce them immediately, but the only immediate modernisation being undertaken is to remove a group of hard-working and diligent peers, including 33 Cross Benchers and their Convenor, for the crime of not being Labour party placements.

[Freddie van Mierlo]

As I am surprised that the Conservatives, as the so-called party of aspiration, are stalwartly defending the principle of hereditary peers. Do they not accept that, in a meritocracy, positions in the legislature should be open based on merit, not inheritance?

[Alex Burghart]

The point that we are making through our amendments is that the Labour party is undermining a key facet of the upper House: scrutiny. We are talking about a body of 88 hereditary peers who have already been performing that job, and have done nothing wrong, but are losing that job because of the measures introduced by the Bill.

[Gareth Snell]

rose—

[Alex Burghart]

I will give way one more time and then I will endeavour to conclude my remarks.

[Gareth Snell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for taking a second intervention. Is he suggesting that life peers—I declare an interest in that my partner is a life peer—are unable to undertake the role of scrutiny? Even with these modest reforms, which are a stepping stone towards greater reform, my party will still be only the third largest party in the House of Lords, while his will still be the largest by some margin. Is he honestly saying that his life peers are unable to take scrutiny seriously?

[Alex Burghart]

I am delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman has married so well. Of course, life peers do a fantastic job of scrutiny—they do so every day, and I enjoy reading their lordships’ Hansard. What we are talking about is a group of 88 hereditary peers, who have done a very good job in scrutinising Government legislation, but who are being removed, through no fault of their own, simply because they do not fit with the Labour’s party’s views. We believe that that is wrong.

I turn now to amendment 25 in my name, which concerns the very simple Conservative principle that constitutional change should not be rushed, and should certainly not be proposed for political advantage. We have inherited a constitution that has evolved through the generations and has the distinction of working. The current constitution of the other place has been effective in bringing expertise and a degree of independence to the work of legislative scrutiny. Like much of the uncodified British constitution, one might not have created such a system from scratch, but the tried-and-tested checks and balances of the House of Lords have complemented the work of the elected Commons.

The Lords does not claim to be a democratic Chamber, and that is the point: our House has primacy. We can see the dangers of ill-though-through constitutional change. None of us in this place will forget the difficulties caused by the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, a foolish measure introduced by the coalition Government that created all manner of unintended consequences. It was rightly repealed by the Conservatives in the last Parliament to reinstate tried and tested long-standing conventions. Let that be a warning to the Government as they meddle, in the name of petty politics, with long-standing conventions that work. Walter Bagehot eloquently described the “dignified” and “efficient” elements of our constitution. In a sense, the hereditary peers represent both thanks to the way in which they diligently scrutinise legislation. Labour must take care that pulling on one thread—in this case, that of the hereditary peers—does not unravel a great deal more.

Amendment 25 seeks to ensure that there is proper scrutiny of the changes to the composition of our legislature. It makes the simple request that a Joint Committee of both Houses should be allowed to scrutinise and report on the Government’s so-called “immediate modernisation” plans, and that this place should agree before legislation comes into force. That plan would be led by the Conservative principle that constitutional change should not be rushed but carefully considered, and implemented only if the House is confident that it will work.

Amendment 26, which stands in my name, seeks clarity on the issue of disputed peerage claims. However, I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said, and I understand that existing mechanisms are in place. For that reason, we will not press it.

To conclude, we on the Conservative Benches think that this Bill is a sham of reform. It is fundamentally misconceived, focusing on the composition of the other place rather than on how we can ensure that it best performs its vital role of scrutiny. This is a Government and a Prime Minister who do not stand up to scrutiny—a Government led by politics, not by principles. My amendments seek to reinsert some principles into this process: that promises to both Parliament and the electorate should be kept, and that we should legislate only for what works, not for political advantage. I see no reason why the Government cannot accept the amendments today.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Slinger]

The right hon. Gentleman was keen to score my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell). He gave him four out of 10, and I think he was rather unfair.

[Alex Burghart]

What would you give him?

[John Slinger]

Significantly higher, let us put it that way—eight or nine, I would say. If I may, I suggest that I would give Opposition Members between seven and 10 out of 10 for being patronising.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart]

I echo the words of the Paymaster General in thanking everyone who has spoken this afternoon. It has been a good natured and interesting debate.

I want to echo some words of my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) in praise of the House of Lords. When I first came to this place, I bumped into Lord Young of Cookham, who I had known a few years previously, and I said, “How are you getting on in the upper House as a Minister?” He said, “It’s rather harder there than it is down your end.” When I asked him what he meant, he said, “Well, you see, when I stood up as a Minister in the House of Commons, I normally felt that, with the support of my officials, I was probably the best informed person in the room. But when you get to the Lords, you face five former Secretaries of State, three former heads of the civil service and people with expertise from across the sector, and what you find there is real scrutiny.”

I love this place and I do not wish to take anything away from it, but I do not wish to see it replicated; one of us is enough. That is why, despite the fact that the Opposition disagree with many of the things that the Labour Government are doing, we have been pleased to see that they have edged away from their long-standing commitment to an elected upper House. An elected upper House would replicate this place unnecessarily. It would inevitably get in the way of the primacy of the Commons and make the passage of law harder. It was very significant that, on 5 March, Lord Mandelson made an intervention with the Lord Speaker—on his very popular podcast—and said that the proposals of the former Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, for constitutional reform had

“barely been put in the oven…let alone…baked.”

I am very pleased that the Labour Government have taken that on board.

That said, the Bill in its present form cannot have the support of the Opposition. The Labour party has reneged on the solemn promise it made in 1998 not to get rid of the remaining hereditary peers until it brought forward a comprehensive plan for a reformed upper House. Many Government Members have said that the hereditary peers sit in the House of Lords by duty of right; well, that is not entirely right. The reason the remaining hereditary peers are in the House of Lords is that the Labour Government put them there. That was the agreement that was reached in 1998.

The remaining hereditary peers—who already sit in the Lords and scrutinise, night after night, the legislation introduced by this House—should not be treated in this way. Had the Government respected their position and made provision for them in a reformed Chamber, it would be very hard—not impossible, but very hard—to oppose this legislation. However, as it is, the Government are seeking to remove established scrutineers in order to replace them with Labour appointees, and we cannot support that.

The Minister’s argument that the Conservatives can nominate replacements is obviously not entirely genuine. Although we can put people forward, we cannot guarantee that they will go into the upper House. The Government could make that commitment tonight, but they have not done so. They have said nothing about the 33 Cross-Bench hereditary peers who will be removed by the legislation. Labour has broken its promise from 1998, and it has broken its promise to bring forward all its reforms immediately. The Conservative party will not support it.

Conflict, Stability and Security Fund: Estimated Spend 2023-24

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd May 2024 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)]

My noble Friend the Minister of State, Baroness Neville-Rolfe DBE CMG, has today made the following statement:

I wish to update the House on the Conflict, Stability and Security Fund’s estimated spend for financial year 2023-24.

The CSSF, now replaced by the Integrated Security Fund, was a cross-government fund which used Official Development Assistance (ODA) and non-ODA funding to enable the integrated delivery of National Security Council priorities. The most recent annual report, for financial year 2022-23, was published in January 2024. A copy of this document can be found at gov.uk: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/conflict-stability-and-security-fund-annual-report-2022-to-2023.

The CSSF is estimated to spend approximately £848.9 million in the financial year 2023-24. £505.7 million of this was ODA and £343.2 million was non-ODA funding. Total CSSF spending in the financial year 2022-23 was £830.4 million as set out in the annual report.

The CSSF transitioned to the Integrated Security Fund on 1 April 2024. The ISF is designed to help address global challenges and build on the unique work the CSSF has done to tackle conflict, stability and security challenges overseas which threaten UK national security. Through integrating domestic and overseas national security programming, the ISF aims to have strategic impact, bring value for taxpayers’ money and demonstrate UK innovation. It will take an integrated, agile, catalytic, and high-risk approach to find solutions to the most complex national security challenges outlined in the Integrated Review Refresh 2023.

The ISF retains many features of the CSSF, including international programmes and projects notably in Ukraine and the middle east. It also includes new areas of programming such as maritime security, economic sanctions, emerging and disruptive technology, notably Al, and incorporates existing economic deterrence and cyber programmes into a single fund. This recognises the transnational nature of some of the threats facing the UK and will enable a more coherent and joined up government response.

Covid-19 Inquiry: Response Costs Quarter 4 2023-24

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Tuesday 14th May 2024 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)]

The Minister of State, Baroness Neville-Rolfe DBE CMG, has today made the following statement:

Throughout the covid-19 pandemic, the Government acted to save lives and livelihoods, prevent the NHS being overwhelmed, and deliver a world-leading vaccine roll-out which protected the nation. In establishing the UK covid-19 inquiry, the Government recognised the unprecedented and wholly exceptional circumstances of the pandemic, and the importance of examining as rigorously as possible the actions the state took in response, in order to learn lessons for the future.

As such, the inquiry is unprecedented in its scope, complexity and profile, looking at recent events that have profoundly impacted everyone’s lives.

The Government remain fully committed to transparency throughout this process. The UK covid-19 inquiry publishes its own running costs quarterly; the most recent update, covering costs for quarter 4 of the 2023-2024 financial year, was published on 9 May. The Government’s response to the inquiry is a significant undertaking and accordingly, the Government have updated Parliament on the UK Government costs associated with responding to the UK covid-19 inquiry.

Ensuring a comprehensive and timely response to the inquiry requires significant input from a number of key Departments, including the Cabinet Office, the Department of Health and Social Care, the UK Health Security Agency, the Home Office and HM Treasury, many of which are supported by the Government Legal Department.

Figures provided are based upon a sample of departmental costs, and are not precise figures for accounting purposes. While every effort has been made to ensure a robust methodology, complexities remain in trying to quantify the time and costs dedicated to the inquiry alone.

It should be noted that alongside full-time resource within Departments, inquiry response teams draw on expertise from across their organisations. The senior civil servant staff costs associated with appearing as witnesses, preparing witnesses and associated policy development work on the covid inquiry are significant. Those costs are not included in the costs below.

Breakdown of Staff and Costs

The Government’s response to the UK covid-19 inquiry is led by inquiry response units across Departments.

Number of UK Covid-19 Inquiry Response Unit staff: 265 full-time equivalents (Q4).

Cost of UK Covid-19 Inquiry Response Unit staff: £5,100,000—including contingent labour costs—(Q4).

Public Procurement

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Monday 13th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)]

I beg to move,

That the draft Procurement Regulations 2024, which were laid before this House on 25 March, be approved.

This statutory instrument represents a significant legislative step in implementing the Procurement Act 2023, which seizes the opportunity, following Brexit, to develop and implement a new public procurement regime for over £300 billion-worth of public contracts. The new regime helps to deliver the Prime Minister’s promise to grow the economy by creating a simpler and more transparent system that will deliver better value for money, reducing costs for businesses and the public sector.

The regulations bring to life and set out the practical detail necessary for the functioning of many of the Act’s provisions. They address many of the points of practical detail that are more appropriately set out in regulations given their detailed nature and propensity to change and need updating from time to time. Many of the measures set out the detail required to be provided in notices required by the Act, which allow contracting authorities to conduct their public procurement in an open, transparent and informative manner. They include the particular contents of various notices that will be used to communicate opportunities and details about forthcoming, in-train and completed procurements.

[Sir John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Does the Minister think the regulations are duly simplified so that it is feasible for the self-employed and very small businesses to have access to contracts? Is there any provision for breaking down contract sizes so that the self-employed and small businesses have more opportunity?

[Alex Burghart]

My right hon. Friend asks a pertinent question—one that was at the forefront of Ministers’ minds when the legislation was drafted and as it made its way through both Houses. A number of provisions in primary legislation are there specifically to increase the chances that small and medium-sized enterprises, which are more likely to be British, get a bigger share of the £300 billion-worth of public procurement. Those provisions include everything from the online procurement system that we are building—which will increase transparency and allow greater notification of pipelines, helping small and medium-sized enterprises to prepare for those procurements—to reduced red tape, which will take the burden off those SMEs and reduce their barriers to entry. We are hopeful that a lot of local businesses in his constituency and in mine will benefit from this landmark piece of post-Brexit legislation.

The contents I was describing would typically include the contact details for the contracting authority, the contract’s subject matter, key timings for the procurement process, and various other basic information about a particular procurement that interested suppliers would need to know. The provisions also cover the practical measures that authorities must follow when publishing those notices, such as publishing on a central digital platform and handling situations in the event that the platform is unavailable.

Beyond transparency, the instrument includes various other necessary provisions to supplement the Act that will be relevant in certain situations. We provide various lists in the schedules so that procurers are able to identify whether certain obligations apply in a particular case, including a list of light-touch services that qualify for simplified rules, and a list of central Government authorities and works that are subject to different thresholds. The regulations disapply the Procurement Act in relation to healthcare services procurements within the scope of the NHS provider selection regime, which has set out the regulatory framework for healthcare services procurement since its introduction in January this year.

The regulations also set out how devolved Scottish contracting authorities are to be regulated by the Act if they choose to use a commercial tool established under the Act or procure jointly with a buyer regulated by the Act. The provisions of the regulations apply to reserved procurement in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, and to transferred procurement in Northern Ireland. The Welsh Government have laid similar secondary legislation that will apply in respect of devolved procurement in Wales, and if the devolved body carrying out that procurement mainly operates in Wales, elsewhere.

The Government have consulted carefully with stakeholders throughout all stages of the reform process, and we published our response to the formal public consultation on these regulations on 22 March. That consultation was a great success, evoking a good response from the various representative sectors, and confirmed that the proposed regulations generally worked as intended. Many stakeholders urged that certain matters be clarified and explained in guidance and training, which is a key part of our implementation programme that is being rolled out across the UK. The Government response demonstrates that we have listened to feedback, and confirms a number of areas in which the consultation led to technical and drafting improvements.

Once the instrument has been made, contracting authorities and suppliers will need time in order to fully adapt their systems and processes before go-live. As such, the Government have provided six months’ advance notice of go-live of the new regime before these regulations come into force, which will happen on 28 October this year.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alex Burghart]

I would be delighted to give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

[John Spellar]

I thank the Minister for giving way—at least it will enable him to draw breath—but could I ask a straightforward question? To what extent is this instrument going to enable British industry and British services to compete on a level playing field, in which we prioritise our domestic producers like every other country in the world does?

[Alex Burghart]

The right hon. Gentleman knows what is coming, because he asked me this question a number of times during the passage of the Act. We are doing two main things: the first is that we are greatly simplifying our procurement processes, which—as he heard me say a moment ago to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Sir John Redwood)—will particularly work to the advantage of small and medium-sized enterprises. However, the right hon. Gentleman must be cognisant of the fact that we have a number of international trade agreements with countries all over the world, in which we have agreed to compete with them on a level playing field. The only way in which we could deliberately give advantageous opportunities to British companies vis-à-vis those arrangements would be to break those trade deals. I am sure that is not what the right hon. Gentleman is proposing.

[John Spellar]

rose—

[Alex Burghart]

I will give the right hon. Gentleman one more go.

[John Spellar]

We have a lot of time and a thin House. I presume that the United States is also a signatory to the same trade treaties, yet it has the “buy American” legislation, which is very strong and very effectively enforced. In the area of shipping, for example, it also has the Jones Act, which says that anything being shipped between ports in the United States has to be carried by American vessels. The United States is working under the same treaty, so why is it able to do that, while we, for some reason—perhaps deep Treasury dogma, or long-standing civil service prejudice against industry—cannot?

[Alex Burghart]

If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the details of the trade deals that we have with other countries, he will see that by and large, those trade deals have been created in order to further commerce and trade between two countries, and agree that there will be areas in which there will be a level playing field between our country and that other country—that is often the basis of a trade deal. The United States is the world’s leading economy and has been for over a century, and can sometimes strike deals or come to arrangements that other countries that are not the world’s largest economy cannot. I am afraid he will have to go and do his own research on American trade deals, but I can explain to him why we have the procurement system we do and why, because of the steps we have taken in this legislation, we will be creating additional opportunities for small and medium-sized enterprises in his constituency as well as in mine. That is much for the better, and it is a much better situation than we found ourselves in while we were still in the EU, with a very cumbersome, slow-moving and long-unreformed system of procurement to which we had been shackled for about 40 years.

For the avoidance of doubt, Members will want to be aware that this statutory instrument has been corrected to remove drafting references and a couple of typographical errors that were mistakenly added during the publishing process. I hope that colleagues will join me in supporting these regulations and will approve this SI today.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart]

Gosh—the Leader of the House? One day, Mr Deputy Speaker.

It has been a pleasure to listen to hon. Members and to hear the widespread support for the regulations. There is widespread recognition that they are a great improvement on the regime that we have swept away. They form part of one of the landmark pieces of legislation since our departure from the European Union.

We heard support from across the House for a procurement system that greatly supports small and medium-sized enterprises. As I said in my opening remarks, that was at the forefront of Ministers’ thinking as the Procurement Bill was devised. It was very much in the minds of the businesses and the contracting authorities that we spoke to as the legislation was put together. The right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) gave an excellent speech and referred to Churchill’s wonderful phrase that industry should be “more content”. From the extensive consultations we have undertaken to prepare the legislation, we know these regulations will make “industry more content”, and that this is very much what businesses have been asking for and looking forward to.

There are a number of things that will help small and medium-sized enterprises, not least transparency and our new online system. The hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) said, quite rightly, that the system must be easy to use. One of my first jobs as an adviser to Government was in child protection. I remember the disastrous integrated children’s system that was in place under the last Labour Government, which took hours upon hours out of social workers’ time. It was dreadful because it took them away from working with children and meant they had to follow a very bureaucratic process.

We must be committed to ensuring that people are able to enter data and use the system without taking away from the most important part of their job. The Procurement Act, the regulations and the supporting documentation also support social value. The national procurement policy statement, which we have published, is keen to make sure that we do not remain obsessed with the most economically advantageous tender, but instead move to the most advantageous tender. That is a broader understanding of what is useful to contracting authorities and to society, and enables the consideration of issues such as local jobs and local skills.

The right hon. Member for Warley mentioned skills, and he was quite right to do so. When I was Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills, I was very keen to make sure that we were building up high-quality, internationally competitive apprenticeships, which played to the skills that were going to be needed in the areas in which they were provided.

The right hon. Gentleman also spoke about levelling up. I saw one of the most powerful examples of levelling up when I was a Minister in the Department for Education. The Government created a freeport on Teesside, which was part of our job. The excellent Mayor of Teesside, Lord Houchen, who I am pleased to say has been wonderfully returned by his constituents, worked with business to build a hydrogen plant in the freeport. The deal that was struck was that the hydrogen plant would support local colleges in providing the high-quality apprenticeships that would get young people—and not so young people—the jobs in that community. That is levelling up: all parts of Government—both from Whitehall to a local level—working with providers of local skills and industry to make sure that people can be a part of the success story of their own communities. I am very proud that it is this Government who have helped to deliver changes such as this.

[John Spellar]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alex Burghart]

I am always delighted to give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

[John Spellar]

I thank the Minister for his positive remarks.

Cannot Government, as customer, prescribe ratios of apprenticeships within the contracts, particularly construction contracts, and stipulate, as was done at the Olympic Park, that if a company moves off site for whatever reason, including when a contract moves into a different phase, and a new company comes in, there is an obligation to transfer the apprentices across? That would be building a sustainable base for the future.

[Alex Burghart]

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows that that is often the case. We do have requirements for apprenticeships to be part of major Government projects. He quite rightly spoke about Government as an intelligent customer—intelligent not just in terms of getting the best price, but of getting the best overall value. I say to him again that the idea of having a system of most advantageous tender, not just most economically advantageous tender, was always at the heart of these regulations.

The right hon. Gentleman should look at the excellent work being done by the Crown Commercial Service. By bundling together purchases made by different parts of Government, we can make sure that we get best value—I mean value in the broadest sense. In the Cabinet Office—perhaps one of the less glamorous areas of Government—in which I am proud to serve, that work is under way, already saving British taxpayers billions of pounds and making sure that we have a better and more holistic view of what Government spend can do.

Work such as that, alongside legislation such as this, means that we are building a system in which not just industry is content, but Government and the taxpayer are too, as well as the small and medium-sized enterprises and the communities in which they sit. I recommend this motion to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Procurement Regulations 2024, which were laid before this House on 25 March, be approved.

Government Security

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Monday 29th April 2024 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)]

The Government take the security of the UK’s citizens, systems and establishments extremely seriously and we have a range of measures in place to scrutinise the integrity of our arrangements.

This was demonstrated in our recent updates on steps to prevent potential security risks materialising in light of the increasing capability and connectivity of visual surveillance systems.

Our approach is preventative to manage and mitigate any potential risk materialising in the future.

That is why in November 2022 the Government instructed all Departments to cease deployment of such equipment on to sensitive sites, where it is produced by companies subject to the National Intelligence Law of the People’s Republic of China.

Departments were also advised that no such equipment should be connected to departmental core networks and that they should consider whether removal and replacement of such equipment should be expedited rather than awaiting any scheduled upgrades. In June 2023, during the Report stage of the Procurement Act, the Government also committed to setting out a timeline for the removal of such equipment from sensitive sites.

Work on the removal of these devices is currently ahead of schedule. To date, it has been identified that the vast majority of sensitive sites never deployed such equipment. Of the small proportion that did, approximately 50% of sites have now had that equipment replaced. Work is pressing ahead to remove remaining devices, with approximately 70% of sites expected to have their surveillance equipment removed by October this year, and all remaining sites on track for complete replacement no later than April 2025. The Government will always keep the security of our personnel, information and estate under constant review and, again, these preventative steps were taken in line with that approach and to manage against risks materialising.

[HCWS431]

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Thursday 25th April 2024 Commons Chamber

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

10. What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of his Department's processes for scrutinising nominations for honours.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)]

It looks like the Member who tabled No. 10 is not out of bed.

A validation process is carried out to assess the strength and credibility of each nomination. We protect the integrity of the honours system by carrying out probity checks with a number of Government Departments before the Prime Minister submits names to His Majesty the King for approval.

[Ruth Cadbury]

The Prime Minister previously backed calls for Horizon victim and campaigner Alan Bates to receive an honour, yet his name was absent from the Prime Minister’s surprise honours list last month. However, Russia-linked Mohamed Mansour’s name was on that list. What was it about the multi-millionaire, generous Conservative party donor that attracted the Prime Minister to the idea of giving him a knighthood?

[Alex Burghart]

The gentleman whose name has just been mentioned is a very successful businessman and philanthropist, and I am sure those qualities were very much in the Prime Minister’s mind when he was put forward for an honour. Extremely distinguished names from the world of artificial intelligence and the creative industries were also recognised for their contribution to our country.

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

One.

[Alex Burghart]

I advise the hon. Gentleman to go back and check the list because, not for the first time in this House, he is wrong.

[Mr Dhesi]

The Prime Minister recently announced an extraordinary round of honours, which many described as lacking integrity and bringing the system into disrepute. It included a donor who had donated £5 million to the Conservative party, and four Conservative MPs loyal to the Prime Minister. In the run-up to a general election that he is widely tipped to lose, what could possibly be the justification for the Prime Minister announcing and recommending a round of honours outside of the traditional King’s birthday list?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It would have been easier if you had been here for the beginning of the question. Stretching the question is testing my patience and the patience of the Government Front Bench.

[Alex Burghart]

I thank the hon. Member for Slough for turning up. I refer him to the answer I gave a few moments ago.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

7. What steps he is taking to support veterans with the cost of living.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

13. What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of public sector procurement of digital goods and services.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)]

The Government recognise how vital digital products and services are for delivering public services. The digital, data and technology playbook provides best practice guidance for the procurement of digital products and services. The playbook is updated annually, most recently in June 2023. Departments are responsible for ensuring that public services delivered by the private sector represent value for money.

[Chi Onwurah]

Digital services procurement should be a win, win, win: the British public get better services, businesses get a good and reliable customer, and public services are reduced in cost. However, that is not the case under this Government. Departments are locked into single-source providers and dependent on legacy systems. The National Audit Office itself said that procurement was not competitive enough. As an example of that, can the Minister say how competitive cloud service provision is across his Government? Will he set out how he is using open source to boost competitiveness in digital services procurement?

[Alex Burghart]

We have a highly successful commercial function in Government, which is driving up value for money across all our commercial arrangements. It monitors contracts, before, during and after they have been in place, to ensure that we reduce the chances of issues such as lock-in. I strongly advise the hon. Lady to go and read the commercial function documentation—

[Chi Onwurah]

I have.

[Alex Burghart]

I am sure she has not. She should read the commercial function documentation that comes out of the Cabinet Office, because she will see, as has been shown successively, that it saves billions of pounds for the British taxpayer.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

With reference to the written questions that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Cabinet Office has answered, can he outline what the Government consider to be the difference between a foreign court and an international court?

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)]

We have answered this question on a number of occasions.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

The Paymaster General told my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) that he could not give a timeline with regard to the infected blood scandal compensation. This subject is raised on an almost daily basis in this House by Members on both sides, because our constituents just cannot understand why it is taking so long. Can he at least give an indication of when he thinks compensation might begin to be paid? It is especially important given that, as I understand it, one victim of the scandal dies every four days.

State of the Estate: 2022-23

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Friday 19th April 2024 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)]

I have today laid before Parliament, pursuant to section 86 of the Climate Change Act 2008, the “State of the Estate in 2022-23”. This report describes the progress made on improving the efficiency and sustainability of the central Government estate and, where relevant, records the progress that Government have made since the previous year. The report is published on an annual basis, and this year highlights the following progress.

Government reduced their overall greenhouse gas emissions by 39%, compared to the 2017-18 baseline, with reductions in energy consumption saving the Government an estimated £163 million compared to the 2017-18 baseline.

Government as a whole reduced total waste by 16% from the 2017-18 baseline, exceeding the 15% target. In total, 5% of Departmental waste was sent to landfill, which therefore met the target of 5% maximum.

The Government Property Agency Government hubs have continued to grow in number during 2022-23, with the opening of Peterborough, Quay House, which brings together departments into this shared location, making more efficient use of space. Sixteen hubs are now in operation, with a combined floorspace of about 330,000 square metres, located in all four nations of the United Kingdom, providing a network of shared modern workspaces for the UK civil service.

Through the places for growth commitment, by March 2023, 12,075 roles had been relocated outside of London (this increased to 18,283 by 31 December 2023). This exceeds the programme’s interim 2025 milestone set out in the levelling-up White Paper of relocating 15,000 roles by 2025.

We are also seeing significant savings being achieved, demonstrating our commitment to running the UK estate in as efficient a manner as possible. We have disposed of no-longer-needed properties worth more than £1 billion, returning that money to the taxpayer to be reinvested.

Across Government and the wider public sector, services are delivering real improvements through more imaginative and integrated estate design, and through encouraging co-location and more efficient use of space. By 2030, Government property will have significantly contributed to economic growth, and supported improving the quality of public services, while at the same time helping to transform places and communities.

[HCWS419]

Access to Redress Schemes

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Thursday 18th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)]

It is a pleasure to respond to a thoughtful debate in which we have heard some very good speeches. Hon. Members have had the opportunity to display the considerable expertise that they have built up, often while dealing with difficult constituency casework. It is a reminder to us all that we are here to serve the needs of our constituents and to help them find redress when hardship, difficulties and, sometimes, the system get in their way.

It was a pleasure to hear experienced Members of the House harking back to the glorious days when we had a full working Thursday. I share their desire for that—and not just because we would have had more people in attendance for this debate. It was particularly good to hear the considered speech of right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), in which he savagely attacked lawyers. I look forward to the leader of his party reading and considering his remarks.

We are here to debate the details that have been raised thanks to the diligent efforts of the all-party parliamentary group in writing to the Government with its thoughts about how we might make general improvements. The Government firmly believe that access to redress is fundamental in upholding justice and fairness in our society. It is imperative that individuals have avenues to seek recourse when they have been wronged or harmed. In recognition of that, the schemes through which the Government provide redress are numerous.

The Government have done more than most in the past few years to address historical wrongs. In 2017, the infected blood inquiry was set up, and in October 2022 interim payments of £100,000 were made to everyone in the UK infected blood support schemes. The Windrush programme was set up in 2019, the Horizon shortfall scheme in 2020, the overturned convictions scheme and the LGBT veterans scheme in 2021, and the group litigation order compensation scheme in 2023. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General set out our next steps in supporting the victims of the infected blood scandal.

The Government have been steadfast in our commitment to providing diverse compensation schemes that cater to varying needs and circumstances. We remain committed to upholding the rule of law and ensuring that all citizens have access to effective mechanisms for resolving grievances and holding institutions accountable. There is, rightly, considerable interest across the House in how we can ensure best practice. I am grateful to be able to engage with some of those ideas today.

Although I acknowledge the interesting ideas mooted by the APPG, I think we should sound a note of caution. We must be wary of any approach that would set up a uniform system for redress and compensation. Each set of circumstances is often very different, and schemes need to be capable of reflecting those differences in order to ensure that the affected individuals get the best possible redress. Any reform process would need to ensure that we do not lose personal understanding of the claimants who are accessing the scheme, and that we provide adequate support and understanding of their personal experiences. I urge hon. Members to keep claimants at the centre of our thinking during consideration of any reforms—that has been at the heart of what hon. Members have said in the debate.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I do not disagree with the Minister— I agree that victims should be at the centre, and that no two schemes will ever be perfectly the same—but there are broad frameworks. What tends to happen—it certainly did with the Horizon scheme—is that people try to reinvent the thing every time. Surely we could put in place some parameters that civil servants could use as a template when faced with a future compensation scheme.

[Alex Burghart]

I was going to come to that point. Although the right hon. Gentleman is right that there is currently no public guidance, that does not limit the sharing of knowledge between Departments and policy areas. There is a great deal of dialogue and shared learning between officials when schemes come into existence. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) suggested in his opening remarks that the wheel was always being reinvented. That is not the case; a learning process happens within Government.

[Richard Foord]

I do not suppose that lessons are not being learned and that one set of civil servants is not passing lessons on to another set; rather, this is about victims having the reassurance that when there is a perceived conflict of interest, they have somewhere else to go.

[Alex Burghart]

The point I was making was very much that we have internal schemes of learning, and we ensure that each new scheme learns from the experiences of those that have gone before it.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

rose—

[Alex Burghart]

I will give way one more time to the right hon. Gentleman, but I am running out of time.

[Mr Jones]

That is not my experience. When we were setting up the advisory board for the Horizon compensation scheme, I asked officials to look at the mineworkers’ compensation scheme, which was a massive scheme. The problem is that, with the turnover of civil servants, corporate knowledge is lost. We need corporate knowledge to be held centrally in Departments—possibly in the Cabinet Office; otherwise, things left to Departments do not happen because people leave.

[Alex Burghart]

The right hon. Gentleman is right: the Government require a means of retaining corporate knowledge. That is something that I have been working on since I came to the Cabinet Office 18 months ago. I will not go into it now, but we are putting in place a number of novel programmes to ensure that, as people move on, we retain their learning—not just with regard to redress schemes, but more broadly across Government. He is right about that. Although there is a richness in having civil servants who have worked in many different Departments and have a broad understanding of how Government works, there is sometimes a danger that, in having that rotation, we lose expert knowledge.

I will move on to some of the progress that has been made on the major schemes that the Government have under way. In respect of the Horizon IT scandal, let me reassure the House that the Government are determined for postmasters to receive the compensation that they deserve. As of 31 March this year, approximately £190 million had been paid to over 2,800 claimants across three schemes: £111 million on the Horizon shortfall scheme; £39 million for all payments, including interim payments, on the group litigation order scheme; and a total of £41 million for all payments, including further interim payments, on the overturned convictions scheme. With regard to the Windrush scandal, as of February this year the Home Office had paid over £83 million across 2,307 claims. On infected blood, as I mentioned earlier, the Government have paid over £400 million in interim compensation to those infected, and bereaved partners, registered with existing support schemes since 2022.

Let me turn to the specific points made by other contributors. Alas, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) ascribes to me a greater power than I possess: I am unable today to respond formally to the Cumberlege review, but he will be aware that the Government are in the midst of very serious consideration of its findings and recommendations, and I know that he will hold our feet to the fire to ensure that that formal response comes soon. To go back one more time to the right hon. Member for North Durham, I am grateful for his acknowledgment of the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake). His comments about lawyers aside, I very much agree that we need schemes that reduce the opportunities for legal opportunism—we owe that to our tax-paying constituents, and also to those who have been wronged.

The Government understand that there are broad lessons to be learned from schemes that have gone on in the past, but also from the four big schemes that are currently under way. It will also be necessary for us to consider the response of the National Audit Office to the letter written earlier this year by the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), so that we can better understand how we can build on the good work that has already been done to help our constituents when similar wrongs befall them in future.