State of the Estate in 2021-22
Alex Burghart Excerpts(2 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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 2021-22”. This report describes the progress made on 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.
[HCWS732]
Draft Border Target Operating Model
Alex Burghart Excerpts(2 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
The Minister of State, Baroness Neville-Rolfe DBE CMG, has today made the following statement:
An important follow-up to Brexit is border controls on goods, including sanitary and phytosanitary checks critical to the protection of animal and plant health and potentially even human health. On 28 April 2022, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) announced that the UK Government decided to delay the introduction of the final set of planned controls on EU imports. We have instead worked with industry to develop a new model for imports into Great Britain. On Wednesday 5 April 2023 we published the draft “Border Target Operating Model”. We have also started a period of engagement with stakeholders across all affected sectors and all parts of the United Kingdom, and the EU, to ensure that they understand the coming changes and are ready to continue to move goods across the border on that basis.
The Model sets out the rules and processes that will apply to the importation of all goods into Great Britain. It will, for the first time, implement security and biosecurity controls on imports from the EU. These controls will ensure our environment is protected, deliver food that is safe to eat whilst maintaining security of supply for consumers, and disrupt criminal activity before it can harm our communities.
The Model will fulfil the UK’s domestic and international obligations with regard to biosecurity and public health, upholding our reputation for high regulatory standards that underpin our agri-food trading relationships. Through the UK single trade window, we will simplify the way importers provide information to Government. This is significantly less burdensome than our original plans, and it supports our wider efforts to drive UK exports.
The gradual roll-out of controls will ensure impacts and costs are managed: we will implement the Model through three major milestones, the first of which importers and their suppliers should begin to prepare for now:
31 October 2023 - The introduction of health certification on imports of medium risk animal products, plants, plant products and high risk food—and feed—of non-animal origin from the EU.
31 January 2024 - The introduction of documentary and risk-based identity and physical checks on medium risk animal products, plants, plant products and high risk food—and feed—of non-animal origin from the EU. At this point imports of sanitary and phytosanitary goods from the rest of the world will begin to benefit from the new risk based model.
31 October 2024 - Safety and security declarations for EU imports will come into force from 31 October 2024. Alongside this, we will introduce a reduced dataset for imports and use of the UK single trade window will remove duplication where possible across different pre-arrival datasets.
We will phase in controls on the west coast for Irish goods from October 2023, while ensuring that Northern Ireland businesses have unfettered access to their most important market in Great Britain, whether they move goods directly or indirectly through Ireland to Great Britain. Further to the Windsor Framework, this will entrench a significant competitive advantage for NI business on the island of Ireland, reflecting Northern Ireland’s integral place in the United Kingdom’s internal market.
Following the engagement period we will publish a final version of the Target Operating Model later this year.
[HCWS713]
Correction to Written Statement HLWS648
Alex Burghart Excerpts(2 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
The Minister of State, Baroness Neville-Rolfe DBE CMG, has today made the following statement:
In order to take account of the Easter recess and the bank holiday for the celebration of the Coronation, the period of the consultation on the effectiveness of the Digital Economy Act 2017 Debt and Fraud Powers has been extended. It will now run until 11 May 2023.
Further to this change, the following text outlines the Government’s approach, updating the approach outlined in the written statement that I made on 22 March 2023:
I am pleased to announce the launch of a consultation on the effectiveness of the Digital Economy Act 2017 Debt and Fraud Powers.
The Debt and Fraud Powers, as contained in Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 of the Digital Economy Act 2017 respectively, allow specified public authorities to disclose information for the purpose of managing and reducing debt owed to a public authority or to the Crown and combating fraud against the public sector.
These powers must be reviewed, three years after their operation, for the purpose of deciding whether they should be retained, amended or repealed. As part of this review, I am required to consult certain persons and publish a report on the review’s outcomes.
As part of this consultation, I shall engage with:
the Information Commissioner,
the Scottish Ministers,
the Welsh Ministers,
the Department of Finance in Northern Ireland,
members of the Home Affairs Committee,
bodies which have used the Debt and Fraud Powers of the Digital Economy Act 2017; and members of the Digital Economy Act Debt and Fraud Information Sharing Review Board.
The Consultation is now open and will end on 11 May 2023.
[HCWS681]
Digital Economy Act 2017 Debt and Fraud Powers: Consultation on Effectiveness
Alex Burghart Excerpts(2 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
The Minister of State, Baroness Neville-Rolfe DBE CMG, has today made the following statement:
Minister Burghart and I are pleased to announce the launch of a consultation on the effectiveness of the Digital Economy Act 2017 Debt and Fraud Powers.
The Debt and Fraud Powers, as contained in Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 of the Digital Economy Act 2017 respectively, allow specified public authorities to disclose information for the purpose of managing and reducing debt owed to a public authority or to the Crown and combating fraud against the Public Sector.
These Powers must be reviewed, three years after their operation, for the purpose of deciding whether they should be retained, amended or repealed. As part of this review, I am required to consult certain persons and publish a report on the review’s outcomes.
As part of this consultation, I shall engage with:
the Information Commissioner,
the Scottish Ministers,
the Welsh Ministers,
the Department of Finance in Northern Ireland,
members of the Home Affairs Committee,
bodies which have used the Debt and Fraud Powers of the Digital Economy Act 2017 and members of the Digital Economy Act Debt and Fraud Information Sharing Review Board.
The Consultation is now open and will last for a period of six weeks, ending on 27 April 2023.
[HCWS661]
Oral Answers to Questions
Alex Burghart Excerpts(2 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
The rapid response unit was created in 2018 and disbanded in August 2022. It was formed as a central resource in the Government Communication Service that used publicly available information to improve Government’s ability to identify where certain narratives about our work were gaining traction online and to understand public sentiment about Government policies. On disbandment, the information collected was archived and it will be retained in line with the Cabinet Office information retention policy, which is available online.
Sir Christopher Chope
But why has my hon. Friend refused to admit in answer to parliamentary questions that the rapid response unit collected and stored information on sitting MPs? As my subject access request has confirmed that I was one of those MPs, can he explain why the unit was using taxpayers’ money to snoop on me, who authorised this and why?
Alex Burghart
My hon. Friend is welcome to come and have a meeting with me and officials in the Cabinet Office to discuss any concerns that he has about the rapid response unit. I have asked them this morning whether there were any monitoring emails that contained his name. I have been given assurances that there were not, but I am very happy for him to come to the Department and talk through all the possible implications. The truth is that the Government have a number of media monitoring services that check what is going on. They monitor not just what MPs and peers say, but what journalists say and anything that is reported in the mainstream media. As my hon. Friend’s name has appeared in newspaper articles in connection with various stories, it is natural that it would be picked up by those monitoring services.
Mr Speaker
I do have concerns about what has been mentioned. If there are dossiers on MPs, we need to know. If someone put in for an urgent question to get to the bottom of this, I would be very tempted, because I do think it needs clarification. A Government Department holding records on MPs may be fine, but it may not be, so I do have great worries.
Alex Burghart
As I said, Mr Speaker, we have media monitoring units so that when people’s names appear in the media, be they MPs, peers or people who are not Members of either House, they will be recorded on those systems. There is nothing untoward about this, I can assure you.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
I am delighted to tell the House that the Government are absolutely committed to supporting SMEs in a variety of ways, from transparently publishing contract pipelines to simplifying bidding processes. The Procurement Bill currently making its way through Parliament will create a simpler and more transparent procurement regime that will open up further business to SMEs.
Gerald Jones
Analysis by Spend Network found that big corporations were still winning 90% of contracts deemed suitable for smaller businesses. These are worth £30 billion per annum. Will the Minister outline what the Government are doing to ensure that SMEs win procurement contracts that they are suited for?
Alex Burghart
The hon. Gentleman will be delighted to hear about the Procurement Bill currently making its way through Parliament. It will come to Report stage after the Easter break. It will help SMEs across the country, including in his constituency and mine, because we have worked hand in glove with the Welsh Government to make sure that the new procurement rules are available in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. I am pleased to say that that is possible only because we left the EU.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
There is no Ministry of Truth; there is the Cabinet Office. The rapid response unit was disbanded in August last year, and I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to talk about any of his concerns, particularly any parliamentary questions that he feels have not been answered properly.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Alex Burghart
The hon. Lady will be pleased to hear that there is a major communications programme to address just that issue.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
I thank the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) for coming to visit the Veterans Charity in Barnstaple earlier this year. Does he agree that such charities run by veterans often play an excellent complementary role to the excellent work his Department is doing?
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It has recently been revealed that the Crown Commercial Service in the Cabinet Office is planning to replace local buying and distribution agreements for food and catering services with what it calls a single national prime supplier. That will have a profound effect on many local and regional wholesalers in Cambridge and across the country. Can the Minister tell us what assessment he has made of that impact, and will he meet me and representatives of those wholesalers to assess the situation?
Alex Burghart
The Crown Commercial Service is always looking at ways in which it can save taxpayers’ money, but it is also mindful to protect small and medium-sized enterprises, which remain a priority for this Administration.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
The global expansion of cyber-space is changing the way we live and work. Can my right hon. Friend outline what steps he is taking to advance our national cyber-security strategy and to bolster our defences against malign actors around the world?
Future of the UK Constitution and Devolution
Alex Burghart Excerpts(2 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
James Grundy
I am not arguing at this stage for the abolition of the mayoralty, although I know that some do. Some feel it has not worked in the way it should. In Greater Manchester—this is the view of Greater Manchester Conservative colleagues—the mayoral model is distinct from the one in London because it has no Assembly to hold the Mayor to account, so there is no scrutiny, accountability or responsibility. Equally, I welcome the fact that there are slightly different models around the country, because different models take account of the different needs of different areas. That is a benefit of the system and not necessarily a downside, whether it means different mayoralties having different powers, some areas not having a mayor, some using the combined authority model or similar, or collaboration between existing local authorities.
Where everyone agrees that certain powers should be devolved further, that absolutely should happen, but where there is discord and dissent or where people feel it is not appropriate, it should not happen. Where there is cross-party support, which there probably is on what they are trying to do in Cheshire, clearly that model should be adopted. I agree with Opposition Members that a mayor would not be appropriate for Cheshire, given that it does not have a major metropolitan centre.
On the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden made—you will, no doubt, be amused by this, Ms Fovargue—the creation of large unitary authorities can sometimes be controversial. There was great distress in 1973 when my own seat of Leigh was merged with the neighbouring rival town of Wigan, which my hon. Friend may have heard me speak about on a previous occasion when he served in a previous role. At the time there was a great phrase illustrating the problem with devolution if done the wrong way. In 1973 the campaign against the creation of huge metropolitan authorities saw the process as one that took power away from local communities and gave it to a larger, more remote one, and its slogan was, “Don’t vote for Mr R. E. Mote”. That did cause problems for Conservative candidate Roger Moate during the following election. But that is how people sometimes feel—that power is being taken further away.
To finish, because I realise we are pressed for time and others may wish to speak, devolution down to regions does not always work. I will give my hon. Friend a good example of this. On transport, he is 100% right in principle. In the mid-1960s, one of the predecessor local authorities to Wigan—Golborne Urban District Council—wrote to the Government on the desperate need for a bypass for the town of Leigh and the villages of Lowton and Golborne, which were mining communities at that time. About 60 years on, we are still waiting for that bypass to be finished, because the problem is that it would run all the way from Bolton down through Leigh and then down to Warrington.
In 1984, when I was a small boy, the middle bit of that bypass was finished—the bit that runs from virtually the border with Bolton down to the border with Warrington —but neither end has been finished. That is because it runs across three different local authorities and two counties—Cheshire and Greater Manchester. The question whether Greater Manchester is a county is a point of debate for many. Certainly, people in Saddleworth would get angry if someone said they were not in Yorkshire. Devolving powers down to the mayor would not work because we would still have to deal with the problem of Cheshire—
James Grundy
That is perhaps a blunt way of describing it.
In some cases, it would be better if these powers and the fragmented responsibility for delivering local infrastructure were taken up to the departmental level, as we do with national schemes, and other powers were devolved down.
By and large, this has been a non-partisan debate, and I fundamentally welcome that. We must listen to what local representatives say about the model of devolution and the suite of powers they want, and not be too prescriptive about the model and powers. Standardisation is the wrong way, although I understand what my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden was trying to argue. If we listen to local representatives, we will get the best version of devolution with proper scrutiny and accountability, and a system that actually works and that local people believe in. The worst thing we could do is impose a uniform model of devolution on everyone whether they want it or not. The Government would lose the good will of a goodly number of Back Benchers if they tried to do that, and would face considerable opposition from the other side of the House.
I am a great champion of localism; it must be the founding principle of devolution. As I said, one size does not fit all.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
It is as pleasure to respond to this wide-ranging debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) on securing it. He was kind enough to say at the outset that I used to be a history teacher; I could not help remembering marking bright undergraduates’ essays. I would sometimes write, “This is a very good essay, but I can’t help but think you might have got the title wrong.” We have four overlapping debates. One is on history, which I shall indulge in; one is on the nature of English devolution; one is on UK devolution; and another is on the structures of the constitution. Those things obviously interlink.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was right to mention where we were, in Westminster Hall. Central Lobby is the embodiment of our four nations and the four physical parts of our constitution: the Lords, the Commons, the ancient Westminster Hall and the Committee Rooms all coming together, along with England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) mentioned that William Wallace was tried in Westminster Hall. She did not mention that it was also where James VI was greeted when he came to be both King of England and King of Scotland. The evolution of those two ancient kingdoms tells us a lot about where the debates on localism come from, because they are very old indeed. In several cases, the shires of England are older than England itself; indeed, Kent probably dates to the pre-Roman period.
When we hear debates about whether Wigan should be allowed to switch over, I am reminded of the passionate arguments against Humberside. I also thought my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (James Grundy) was very brave—in this company—to refer to the problem of Cheshire, because we have heard powerful advocacy on behalf of the people of Cheshire for the sort of local representation they would like.
It was from the shires of England that Parliament was formed in the 13th century. In the pre-conquest period, the leaders of the shires were represented in the Witan. These are very old structures and identities, and that history still infuses the debates we have today about where boundaries should lie and about where power should derive from. Obviously, the answer is in the interaction between the centre and the locality and in the adequate balance of the two.
On English devolution, I respect the remarks from the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) about these issues crossing party lines, and that has contributed to the open and good-natured debate we have had. The reason this issue cuts across party lines is that it is not easy, and there is variation in how people see things in different parts of the country, based on their geography, history and recent experiences.
Pity me somewhat, for I am merely a Parliamentary Secretary in the Cabinet Office, not a Minister in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, but I have heard the representations made by Members from Cheshire, and I will be certain to put them to colleagues in DLUHC. I am sure they will thoughtfully consider what has been said and the request for a meeting.
The Government have been a powerful advocate for devolution, and we have practised what we preach. I have seen the results in my time in Government. I was lucky enough to be the Minister for Apprenticeships in my last job but one. In Teesside, I saw the new Tory Mayor working with central Government and with local communities and business to create staggering new opportunities. It was the first time that I had seen all these things come together. The Government created the freeport—a place where there could be opportunity. The Mayor got in touch with BP, and said, “Here is a place we can do business. Come and put your hydrogen plant here.” BP went to the local colleges and said, “We want the people who are coming through your colleges to get the jobs in our plant.” Opportunities were created for local people by negotiation between central and local government, and that, I strongly believe, is levelling up.
In answer to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden made on standardisation versus variation, and to the fears my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) expressed about a cookie-cutter approach, we have cookie cutters of several different shapes. We think those are the best way of delivering effective devolution, with the opportunity for there to be combined county authorities or individual unitary authorities, based on the needs and experience of local communities.
Let me turn to devolution across the UK. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North—I have debated this point with her before—said that the use of section 35 should only be exceptional. Well, it has been used only once. There is no greater illustration of how it is used only in exceptional circumstances than the fact that, in national devolution’s 25-year history, it has been used only once, and even then only in very particular circumstances and on sound legal advice to maintain the balance of laws across the United kingdom. I hope the hon. Member will see—although I know she will not—that that shows that the mechanisms of devolution are, to a certain extent, working and being respected.
I acknowledge what my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy and the hon. Member for Strangford said about the need for there to be respect between nations. That is absolutely right. We are all in this together. In respecting those relationships, we must also understand that this building is one of the places in which the nations come together and that there remains a role for the UK Parliament in the structures of the United Kingdom.
That whistlestop tour does not necessarily answer every individual question, but I am happy to come back to any hon. Member who feels I have not covered their points.
Robin Millar
The debate has been commendable for the tone in which it has been conducted on both sides of the Chamber. However, I must observe that, when the Labour Government introduced the devolved Assembly, it had an unintended consequence. The anecdote at the time was that doing that would deal with nationalism but, with great respect, we have a strong nationalist presence in this House under this Administration. Has the Minister given thought to the factor of unintended consequences?
To cite one example, tax-raising powers have been devolved, but in the case of Wales they have not been taken up. I use that example as a further illustration of the unevenness and the natural response—the phrase I used was “desire lines”. Will the Minister comment on that in the minute he has left?
Alex Burghart
Few people have thought about this issue more than my hon. Friend. He is certainly right to say that the Labour party was wrong in its assessment that devolution would kill nationalism, although these were cross-cutting issues even at the time. I remember Charles Clarke arguing openly that the Government were mistaken and that the nationalists would be empowered. That goes to show that parties can hold different views.
I disagree with the hon. Member for Nottingham North on one thing. I think that the constitution of the United Kingdom remains incredibly strong. Indeed, it seems capable of coping with everything we throw at it. One of its great strengths over the centuries has been its ability to adapt, evolve and grow, and when it comes to the agenda this Government are pursuing on devolution in England, it is doing just that.
Civil Service Pay
Alex Burghart Excerpts(2 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) on securing the debate, as I welcome the opportunity to discuss these issues. I am sure the Chancellor will have heard her remarks. The Government are obviously in the process of preparing for the Budget in the very near future.
At the outset, I want to join all Members in recognising the extraordinary hard work and dedication of the civil service. I cannot accept the remarks made—admittedly, as an aside—by the hon. Members for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) and for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) about how the Government are in some way scapegoating civil servants. That is absolutely not the case. It was not the case in the urgent question in the House yesterday. Obviously, a lot of people in the Cabinet Office are sad about what has happened over the past few days, but that in no way detracts from our huge respect for our exceptional civil servants, on whom we rely every single day. It is important for me to put that on the record.
As right hon. and hon. Members will undoubtedly be aware, civil service pay is determined by separate processes for delegated grades—typically grade 6 and below—and the senior civil service. For delegated grades, the Cabinet Office publishes the pay remit guidance annually. The guidance is a cost control document setting out the parameters of average awards in a pay remit year for Departments. For the senior civil service, the Senior Salaries Review Body makes independent recommendations to the Government based on evidence provided by the Government and data from recognised trade unions and the labour market.
In the 2021 spending review, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the end of the temporary pay pause in the public sector, including the civil service, starting from the year 2022-23, throughout the duration of the spending review period to 2024-25. The strong recovery in the economy and labour market at that time allowed us to return to a normal pay setting process. Again, right hon. and hon. Members will be aware that new challenges then emerged. We are operating now in a very different economic environment. Higher than expected global energy and goods prices have already led to unavoidable increases in the cost of living in the UK, and the repercussions of Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine have added considerably to those pressures.
Last year, the civil service pay remit guidance allowed Departments to make awards of up to 3%, which we absolutely recognise is below inflation. The Government of course recognise the significant strain that cost of living pressures are putting on everyone, including civil servants, and this Government have been helping with energy support and other cost of living payments for the most vulnerable.
Chris Stephens
The Minister mentioned the pay remit guidance. For clarity, can he confirm that the pay remit guidance is one document—that there is only one piece of pay remit guidance? If so, why are there 200 sets of negotiations across Westminster Government Departments?
Alex Burghart
The hon. Gentleman will be glad to hear that I will come to that point very soon.
As everyone will, I hope, appreciate, the Government put fiscal responsibility at the very centre of our policy, and we are taking appropriate steps to manage inflation. Obviously, at the moment, it is not public sector wages that are driving inflation. Many factors are driving inflation. Inflation is besetting our closest friends and competitors around the world; it is an international problem. However, if we were to take the advice of the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) and others, we would find ourselves in trouble.
The Governor of the Bank of England and its chief economist have both said that inflation-matching pay rises in the public sector can spill over into higher pay across the economy, and that would make the fight against inflation even more challenging. That is why halving inflation is the top of the Prime Minister’s five immediate priorities, alongside growing the economy, reducing national debt, getting the NHS backlog down and stopping small boats crossing the channel. Our focus is on pay for 2023-24.
John McDonnell
It is difficult to see how a reasonable settlement below the rate of inflation—for example, the fire brigade settlement of 7%, with backdating and 5% for next year—could in any way offend against the Bank of England Governor’s comments. Have the Government even considered an offer of that sort to the civil service?
Alex Burghart
The right hon. Gentleman is a former shadow Chancellor. He will appreciate that the higher the pay settlement, the slower the rate of decline in inflation is likely to be. [Laughter.] He laughs; I hope he has realised how the numbers work.
John McDonnell
This is unique in economic history in this country. We are arguing that a pay award below the rate of inflation is still inflationary. I have never heard that one before, and I think we should record it for posterity.
Alex Burghart
I know the right hon. Gentleman is new to this House, and I am delighted to be able to tell him that the minutes of this debate will indeed be recorded for posterity. He will understand that the sooner the speed of inflation comes down to a manageable level, the sooner we can return to growth in the economy. The sooner the whole economy benefits, the sooner public services will benefit. He proposed an inflation-matching pay rise, but that would certainly not help bring down inflation, and he knows that. It is very easy to propose things from the Labour Back Benches that sound good, but that are impractical and damaging. The Government have to take fiscally responsible decisions.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden), said in a recent PACAC evidence session that considerations for the pay settlement this year will, of course, be done in the context of higher inflation, but that
“we have to be cognisant of wider pressures on the public finances, which ultimately can be paid for only by higher taxes, by increased borrowing or by savings elsewhere in the Government…Ministers have to take difficult decisions.”
Geraint Davies
The Minister is making the case for a balanced approach. The Chancellor’s objective is to halve inflation this year, from 10% to 5%, so prices will have risen 15% over two years. Given that, what would be a reasonable and balanced pay award to civil servants over those two years, in the Minister’s view?
Alex Burghart
Those conversations are ongoing, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware. It is not within my remit to speculate on that.
Alex Burghart
I will come back to the hon. Gentleman’s point.
Salaries for junior grades in the civil service remain comparable with private or public sector equivalents. Many civil servants also benefit from defined benefit schemes, where employers contribute around 27% of earnings. In contrast, most private sector employees receive defined contribution pensions, which are dependent on investment performance, and where employer contributions are typically around half those in the public sector.
As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, pay arrangements for civil servants below the senior civil service are delegated to Departments as separate employers. That has been the case since 1996, and was not a position overturned by the previous Labour Government. The annual pay remit guidance sets out the financial parameters within which civil service Departments can determine pay awards for their staff. Negotiations take place between organisations and trade unions. The Cabinet Office does not negotiate or consult on pay or changes to terms and conditions outside the civil service management code. Ultimately, it is for Departments to decide on their pay awards and how they are structured, in the light of their own budgets and priorities, and to negotiate with their trade unions.
There are many merits to the delegated model, as the last Labour Government recognised. Civil service Departments deal with many different, complex issues. That means it is really important that Departments continue to have the flexibility to tailor their own pay and grading arrangements to enable them to recruit, retain and reward the hard-working civil servants who deliver for them.
Pay remit guidance also allows Departments to seek further flexibility for a pay award above the headline range for pay awards. That has enabled some Departments to make higher awards to their staff in return for productivity and efficiency gains, or to reform terms and conditions of employment, in order to deliver transformational reform. That has been demonstrated in pay deals at His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Ministry of Justice in recent years.
We continue to explore opportunities for greater coherence for reward in future years in support of civil service challenges and priorities, which is where the work of cross-Government professions and functions have a particularly valuable role to play. The Minister for the Cabinet Office met with some of the main civil service unions on 12 January to listen to their representations on pay, as part of an exchange of information to inform pay for 2023-24. That is supported by continuing dialogue at official level.
The Government remain committed to holding discussions about pay for 2023-24. We want to work constructively with the civil service trade unions as the Government consider the pay remit guidance, the delegated grades and the evidence to the Senior Salaries Review Body on senior civil service pay. I am confident that when we announce the 2023-24 civil service pay remit guidance, we will continue to strike the balance between appropriate reward and the need to live within our means as a nation.
Chris Stephens
The Minister has confirmed that there is one pay remit guidance. Do the Government have any plans to cut the numbers of negotiations? There are currently more than 200 across Westminster Government Departments.
Alex Burghart
The hon. Gentleman will have heard me say that we consider there to be many advantages to this model.
The purpose of Westminster Hall debates is for the Minister to come and listen to what colleagues in the House have to say. It was interesting, listening to the hon. Member for Vauxhall, to hear that a lot of the positions from the Labour Back Benches do not necessarily accord with the position of the Labour Front Bench. I wonder whether one of the things that is happening in this Westminster Hall debate is an internal debate within the Labour party being aired in public. There was no position from the Labour Front-Bench spokesperson on collective bargaining, on the pay offer, or on PCS strike actions.
Florence Eshalomi
On this side of the House, we will make sure that we negotiate—sit around the table and address the concerns. It is not for me to say, “This is what we will offer.” It is about sitting down with the unions, outlining the concerns and then coming to a decision.
Alex Burghart
I respect the hon. Lady’s position. However, that is not the position that many of her colleagues have taken here today. It is important that the Labour party comes to an agreed position before the next election. If it does not, we will be sure to remind the public that the Labour party does not have a position on this, whereas the Government do.
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
Order. I remind the hon. Lady to address her remarks through the Chair, rather than using “you”. The Minister is responding on behalf of the Government.
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
I am neutral. I remind the hon. Member to address her remarks through the Chair. The Minister is here representing the Government rather than as an individual.
John McDonnell
There was a flippant remark from the Minister with regard to meeting PCS members. I just remind him that PCS members in my constituency—two Border Control staff—died during the pandemic because of covid. They sacrificed their lives keeping this country safe.
Alex Burghart
On a point of order, Mr Pritchard. The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that there was no flippant remark about PCS whatsoever. [Interruption.] There was no flippant remark whatsoever. The record will state that all I said was that you had been invited to join the picket line, Mr Pritchard. That is not a flippant remark about PCS.
Alex Burghart
It was not a flippant remark about PCS. The right hon. Gentleman knows that it was not.
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
Order. The Minister is entitled to put his point of order—although it is not a point of order. However, it has been put on the record by our excellent Hansard colleagues here. We go back to Beth Winter for the last three minutes of the debate.
Security and Intelligence Agencies: Contingencies Fund Advance
Alex Burghart Excerpts(2 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
The security and intelligence agencies have presented a supplementary estimate for approval to Parliament in the central Government supply estimates booklet—HC 1133, published on 21 February). Full details can be found on www.gov.uk. As it will be some time before the associated legislation receives Royal Assent, the agencies are seeking an advance from the Contingencies Fund in order to meet contractual commitments.
Parliamentary approval for additional resource of £140,017,000 has been sought in a supplementary estimate for the security and intelligence agencies. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £140,017,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.
As the security and intelligence agencies are non-ministerial departments, I am making this statement on behalf of their accounting officer to ensure that Parliament is informed of this advance from the Contingencies Fund.
[HCWS607]
MPs and Second Jobs
Alex Burghart Excerpts(2 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
I have secured this debate to consider the urgent need to put an end to the ongoing scandal of MPs using their positions to enrich themselves through second jobs.
Being a Member of Parliament is a privilege. It is a well-paid job, and it is also a full-time job, so when MPs chase corporate cash, they are actually short-changing the public who pay them. That is why I introduced the Members of Parliament (Prohibition of Second Jobs) (Motion) Bill, which would ban MPs from having second jobs. I introduced that Bill soon after the issue of MPs’ second jobs shot to prominence through the Owen Paterson lobbying scandal. That case became a lightning rod for public anger not just about corporate lobbying, but about the wider dodgy deals and crony contracts that the Government were mired in.
That scandal should have been the moment when the Government cleaned the stables and took real action to prevent the corrosive influence of MPs’ second jobs. Has the problem gone away more than a year since that scandal came to light? No. In fact, it has only got worse. There has been the illusion of action so that the Government could draw a line under the issue, but an investigation by The Observer found that, one year after the Owen Paterson scandal, MPs were earning more than ever from second jobs. When scandals happen and real action is promised, what message does it send to the public if the problem is instead allowed to get worse?
The latest figures, from January, show that MPs have earned more than £17 million on top of their salaries since the last general election, and that Conservative MPs have taken nearly 90% of it. Around two thirds of that money went to just 20 MPs, of whom 17 were Conservative Members. I invited the top 10 highest outside earners to intervene in the debate because I wanted to give them the chance to defend the right of MPs to continue raking it in from outside earnings. It appears none of them has taken me up on my offer, which is a shame.
I am disappointed that the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), is not here today. Under his Government, the Tories repeatedly blocked my Bill banning second jobs. Time after time, his Government blocked any meaningful action against second jobs, and no wonder—the former Prime Minister is now the highest earning MP, having made nearly £5 million in outside earnings since leaving Downing Street last September. It would take the average nurse around 150 years to make what the former Prime Minister has made in just six months, and it is 50 times more than his MP’s salary.
Those who earn more from their outside earnings than they do as MPs all too often seem to view being an MP as their second job. Over the last year, as I have pushed my Bill in this House, I have heard some truly laughable attempts to justify MPs chasing corporate cash. Government Members used to tell me that my Bill would deprive our Parliament of the real world experience provided by second jobs, which bring us closer to people out there. Isn’t it funny how the Government Members who justify the racket of second jobs never choose to work for low wages in supermarkets, as bus drivers or in care homes—jobs done by millions of people who we are here to represent?
Instead, we have examples such as the former Chancellor and Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), who earned £1,500 an hour advising a US investment bank. These are not the jobs or experiences of most people. Big money second jobs like that do not make MPs more in touch with the real world. They do the exact opposite, adding to the sense of an out-of-touch political class that, I am afraid, is increasingly held in contempt by the public. We have even had Conservative MPs claiming:
“There’s no way I could be an MP without my outside interests. My wife works full time, I’ve got kids and need the money for childcare.”
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
I am enjoying the hon. Gentleman’s speech. He has ascribed a quotation to a Conservative MP. Would he mind saying who it came from, so that we know it is not just a vague assertion or a hypothetical Conservative MP?
Richard Burgon
I believe that it was provided anonymously to the press when this Conservative MP was pleading poverty on £84,000 a year but did not want their constituents to know they were doing so. The Minister is mistaken if he thinks that that quote is somehow unrepresentative of an attitude.
How on earth do these people think that the rest of the population, who are earning way below £84,000 a year, cope? These are the same MPs, by the way, who are all too happy to vote through swingeing cuts to benefits and to suppress the wages of workers who earn far less than they do.
Richard Burgon
My hon. Friend is correct. It is even worse that this racket is taking place during a cost of living crisis, when we have seen a proliferation of food banks—we see Tory MPs raking it in while some Tory MPs even deny the need for food banks.
Many MPs seem to fail to understand that they already earn more than 95% of the public. If they do not get how well paid they are compared with the rest of the public, or if they are not happy with their salary, perhaps they are in the wrong job. Given that our job is to represent the people, perhaps our democracy would be better served by MPs who better reflect 95% of people in this country. Having MPs who are seen to be using their position not to serve the public, but to fill their own pockets is fuelling a lack of trust in our political system. People raise important questions about who MPs are there to serve: they rightly ask whether, if an MP is getting paid tens of thousands of pounds, that MP can really claim to be representing the public and not their other employer.
Despite what many may tell themselves, the truth is that MPs are being paid not for what they know, but for who they know. They would not get those vast sums from big corporations if they were not MPs with political connections, which creates obvious conflicts of interests. MPs’ second jobs are an especial danger to our democracy, given that trust in politicians is already at the lowest level on record. Two in three people now see politicians as merely out for themselves, while just one in 20 people think that politicians are in the job primarily to serve the public good. More than 60% of the public think that if an MP is being paid to do another job, that prevents them from being independent and able to make the right decisions as an MP. Banning second jobs is one way in which the Government can prove to the public that MPs are not just in it for themselves, and that they really are making decisions based only on what they believe is best for the people of this country. The majority of people in this country want a ban on MPs earning money from second jobs, and only a tiny minority—just 19%—support MPs’ second jobs. MPs need to wake up to the reality of that public feeling and public opinion.
So what is the way forward? My Bill to ban MPs’ second jobs could be an important first step in the long road towards a more transparent and healthy democracy. My Bill is clear and bold: no paid second jobs for MPs at all, except in very limited circumstances.
Alex Burghart
Could the hon. Gentleman set out what those exceptions would be? I am afraid that I cannot remember from his Bill.
Richard Burgon
I will set out the exceptions that my Bill outlines. I am disappointed that the Minister does not know the detail of my Bill, since his Government repeatedly blocked it. I thought they must have read it very carefully in order to repeatedly block its passage through Parliament.
My Bill adds a new punishment for breaking second jobs rules: a fine at least equal to the amount paid to the offending Member for their second job, removing any financial gain from breaking the rules. That is in addition to existing sanctions that the Standards Committee can recommend, which include suspension. Some will argue that my Bill is very tough—indeed it is, because it has to be. We need to cut the rot out of our politics. The very limited exemptions I have included are when a second job is about maintaining professional qualifications, such as in nursing, or when a Member is working on the frontline in our NHS—as a doctor, for example—or in another emergency service. Those roles are about genuine public service and public interest, and have nothing to do with the scandal that has been shaking Parliament and sowing such distrust in politicians.
Some MPs have asked me how my Bill would impact on ministerial or Select Committee roles. Of course, it would not do so, because those additional roles are a key part of our democratic functioning in which we are trying to rebuild trust. My Bill would also allow MPs to carry out certain paid work, such as media appearances or speeches, if that entire outside earning is donated to charity. That way, we can be sure that those activities are about public service, not private enrichment.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) on securing the debate. It is a pleasure to be in an Adjournment debate with him again; I sometimes think that only he and I care about these issues—and the hon. Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne), of course. I enjoyed listening to his speech and I know that his views come from a well thought out and sincere position; I reassure him that the Government’s do too. We recently considered many of the issues that have been raised—he will have been present in those debates.
We firmly believe, as the hon. Gentleman does, that an MP’s primary job is to serve their constituents. It is at the will of our constituents that we all sit here and without their support, we are nothing. We on the Conservative Benches also appreciate that the issue of outside or additional earnings is complex, and it has been considered by the Standards Committee, as he will be aware. That is why we have continued to support the clarification and improvement of the rules in the code of conduct to ensure that Members’ interests are properly declared and that the ban on paid advocacy and lobbying is strengthened, as was decided by the House in December 2022.
At that time, the question was raised about whether work undertaken outside should be limited. We believe that the responsibility for considering what constitutes a reasonable limit is a matter for individual Members; or to put it another way, it is a matter for their constituents. As I have said, ultimately, it is our constituents to whom we must answer—not to the hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition, the Government or even the House of Commons. That is why the Government came to the view that we would support the work that has been undertaken to introduce robust new measures to strengthen the standards system in Parliament and to ensure that the rules prohibit Members from using their parliamentary role to benefit private interests rather than their constituents’ interests.
We remain of the view that, as the Committee on Standards in Public Life recommended in 2018, Members should be banned from accepting any paid work to provide services as a parliamentary strategist, adviser or consultant. 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 I have said, as a parliamentary strategist, adviser or consultant, and that outside work should be undertaken only within reasonable limits. The Government believe that an outright ban on second jobs is unnecessary as a consequence, as the rules in the code of conduct effectively address concerns about paid advocacy and emphasise the duty of MPs to properly serve their constituents and represent their interests in Parliament.
The hon. Gentleman made a number of good points, and he made a valid argument which, if he will forgive me, I will paraphrase. It was that it is a privilege to be here, and Members should not be spending their time on issues that are not associated with their constituents’ needs and should not be allowed to earn large sums of money by doing other things. One day, there might be a Labour Government—God help us—and when that happens, there is a chance that he might be sitting on this Front Bench, and at that point he will have a second job. Even though he would not ban that under his Bill, if his argument is about time, I point out that there is no second job or outside interest that could possibly compete with the amount of time that a Minister is expected to spend on their job, as he will see if ever he sits on the Treasury Bench. I confess that being a Minister reduces the amount of time Members have to spend on the needs of our constituents; it really does. We do it—it is an honour, a privilege and a pleasure—but it would be a lie to say that Members have as much time to spend on their constituency work when they are a Minister as they do when they are a Back Bencher. So the argument on time does not stand up on its own.
On the argument about money, the hon. Gentleman made it clear that he finds the fact that some Members of this House earn a great deal of money unpalatable and unsavoury, and he is entitled to those views. However, it is not for him to decide whether that should rule out such a person from being an MP. The people who get to decide that are not him or even the Government; those who should have the final say on whether such a person is an MP are their voters. Deep down, he knows that too, because I know that he is a democrat at heart, and he believes that sovereignty rests with the people. I do too, and I do not want to see a Government passing legislation that starts to make decisions for voters. Voters should have the final say: let them make their decisions.
Richard Burgon
I thank the Minister for responding in such a serious and considered way on this issue. I get the impression that he will not be supporting my Bill to ban MPs’ second jobs. He refers to constituents and the public as sovereign, and I agree. What about this for an idea, then? If the Government are not prepared to ban second jobs, as I think they should, what about passing legislation to ensure that the outside earnings of every MP are listed under their name on the ballot paper at a general election? Constituents could then have a look and decide whether they want to vote for a person to carry on being their MP.
Alex Burghart
The hon. Gentleman might find, if he did that, that people would be asking for a lot of other information to be published about Members at the ballot box. The public are perfectly capable and willing to find out about people they vote for, as he will know from knocking on doors. In my experience, voters are often very well informed and do not vote blindly. Consequently, although he says that the public support the thrust of his Bill, I put it to him that the public have also voted repeatedly over many years for Members with outside interests, when they have often had a choice not to do so. We should all respect their decision, because it is their decision.
The hon. Gentleman says that changing the law in this way would make this House more representative of people in the country. Often when I voted before I was a Member of this House, I did not vote for people like me. I made a choice to vote for the best candidate regardless of their background. Again, there are some things that are right for us to debate, but that are not right for us to decide. We must leave these decisions in the hands of the voters. Of course, such a system can only work when we have transparency, and it is transparency that this Government have supported and will continue to support.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his thoughts, and I hope he will forgive me for not being able to recall the particular exemptions that he set out in his Bill. I thank him for his interest in this subject, but I am afraid that we will have to agree to disagree.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before I put the question, I want to intrude a little on the debate to say that this weekend is WorldPride in Sydney, Australia. Hundreds of thousands of people from all over the world will be gathering to celebrate the festivities there, including mardi gras. [Interruption.] The Minister asks whether I will be one of them—I went to WorldPride in New York just before covid, and it was glorious and fantastic. The hon. Members for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) and for Redcar (Jacob Young) and I have all agreed that we would love to be there this weekend, but someone has to keep the show on the road, particularly on Friday. We want to send a clear message to all those celebrating. I have seen the Sydney opera house lit up with all the flags encompassed in the pride movement, and it looks fantastic. It will be superb weather, because it is Australia. They will have a fantastic time and we want to say from the House of Commons in the United Kingdom that we share your pride.
Question put and agreed to.
Procurement Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting)
Alex Burghart ExcerptsTuesday 21st February 2023
(2 years, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Procurement Act 2023 View all Procurement Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 21 February 2023 - (21 Feb 2023)
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my hon. Friend for that really valid point. It is important that we look at what has happened. Over the years, there have been many examples of outsourced services in which staff working conditions have been eroded and staff pay has not kept in line with inflation. The situation that we are seeing now is that staff are walking—they are voting with their feet and choosing to lose a day’s pay by going on strike. That is a result of some areas of outsourcing. From catering to social care, from cleaning to IT and HR services, almost no area of public services has been left untouched.
Too often, outsourcing is accompanied by deterioration in the pay, pensions and terms and conditions of the staff delivering the service. That almost creates a two-tier workforce of directly employed staff working alongside contractor staff, as well as a two-tier workforce within the contractor. The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations can offer some limited protection for staff who are transferred to an outsourced contract, but staff recruited by the contractor after transfer have no such protection. Those inferior conditions can translate to lower costs for contractors, which can play a crucial role in their offering a cheaper tender and winning contracts.
A major flaw of this model is that it creates a false economy. The cost of the service is superficially low, but over time, staff have to claim universal credit. People retire without enough to live on and have to claim pension credit. Lower pay and insecure work have a negative impact on mental health. The decline in the number of decent public sector jobs in the community has a chilling effect on the local economy. The dots are not joined and the wider economic costs not considered.
In some regards, the supposed benefits of outsourcing have been eroded by the reality of contracting out services in recent years. There has been a notable turn towards insourcing—the process by which a public authority takes a service that has been contracted out and brings it in-house to be delivered by directly employed staff. However, we are still a very long way from the presumption that services should be outsourced only if it can be shown that the work cannot be delivered just as effectively in-house. Hundreds of thousands of carers, cleaners, porters, security staff and catering staff in our public services workforce are among the worst-off and most insecure workers in the UK.
Creating a check on such practices should be an objective of the Bill. That could be achieved through a public interest test to require contracting authorities to think holistically and outsource public services only when it is demonstrably in the public interest and when a robust assessment provides clear evidence that the services could not be better delivered in-house.
If a contracting authority is considering outsourcing public services that are currently delivered in-house, or where contracts are due for renewal, it should ensure that outsourcing or re-contracting passes a pre-procurement test and provides greater public value than direct service provision. The new clause would require the contracting authority to
“demonstrate to the public, service users and its employees that it has thoroughly assessed the potential benefits and impact of outsourcing the service in question against a public sector comparator with assessments being based on criteria to be set by the Secretary of State from time to time, including taking a five year consideration of—
(a) service quality and accessibility;
(b) value for money of the expenditure;
(c) implications for other public services and public sector budgets;
(d) resilience of the service being provided;
(e) implications for the local economy and availability of good work in relevant sub-national labour markets;
(f) implications for public accountability and transparency;
(g) effect on employment conditions, terms and standards within the provision of the service to be outsourced and when outsourced;
(h) implications for public sector contributions to climate change targets;
(i) implications for the equalities policies of the contracting authority and compliance with the public sector equality duty.”
Importantly, the public interest test would take place pre-procurement, and not all services subject to the test would eventually go to market. To increase transparency around those services that enter into the procurement process, the Bill should mandate information about outcomes of the associated public interest test to be published.
Under the new clause, the contracting authority and the provider of the outsourced service would also be required to
“monitor the performance of any contracted service against the public interest test and the stated objectives set by the contracting authority pre-procurement to demonstrate that outsourcing the service in question has not resulted in a negative impact on any of the matters mentioned in subsection (2)(a) to (i).”
Labour is clear that we would run the biggest programme of insourcing for a generation. We recognise the value offered by those delivering outsourced services, but we have concerns about the current scale of outsourcing. New clause 3 would lay out a clear test for outsourcing, ensuring it is done only when it is in the interests of the public, and that we do not hand out public services on the cheap.
We must create a culture of value for money throughout the public sector and avoid waste wherever we can. We believe that the new clause would help to create that culture. I hope that the Minister will give it due consideration and support it.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Mundell. I can feel an air of excited sadness in the room because there is a possibility that the Committee may finish its consideration of the Bill today.
May I begin with a small correction relating to remarks that I made on 2 February when discussing dynamic markets? I stated that the current regime for dynamic markets does not remain open for new suppliers to join at any time. I was confused when I was talking about that; I was talking about the new provisions that we are making for open frameworks, where it is now possible for people to jump on. I just wanted to put that on the record.
New clause 3 would require contracting authorities always to undertake a public interest test when considering whether to outsource or continue to outsource a public sector service. Following the collapse of Carillion in January 2018 and the ongoing difficulties of some companies in the outsourcing sector, the Government’s commercial function undertook a review of what we outsource, why we outsource and how we outsource. It concluded that
“when done well, the private sector can bring efficiency, scale and fresh thinking to the delivery of public services.”
In February 2019, we published the first sourcing playbook, which captured key policy reforms for better outsourcing that contracting authorities should follow when considering how best to deliver Government services. This applies whether the contracting authority decides to outsource and deliver a service in partnership with the private and third sector, insource and use in-house resources, or do a mixture of both. That includes carrying out a make-versus-buy assessment, now referred to as a delivery model assessment, which is mandatory for central Government services in certain situations, such as the introduction of new public services or where there is a need to re-evaluate an existing service, for example because of a deterioration in the quality of delivery. It is important to emphasise that the playbook supports a range of delivery models that should be carefully considered as part of a mixed-economy approach to service delivery.
As well as in-house delivery and outsourcing, different models, such as grant making, may also be available. Hon. Members will recall that when I spoke on clause 3, I referred to the types of contracts regulated by the Bill. In particular, contracts must be for pecuniary interest, which can encompass monetary and non-monetary consideration. Contracts merely for the reimbursement of costs and without further remuneration or other direct benefit to the supplier are not covered. We do not, for example, intend the regime to capture contracts for the deployment of grants.
The sourcing playbook, which is now in its third iteration, builds on policies set out in the first sourcing playbook and is a more agile and appropriate place for this type of provision. I recently met the Business Services Association, which was extremely supportive of the playbook approach.
The tests set out in the new clause would be hugely burdensome for any contracting authority every time it is considering outsourcing or re-letting an already outsourced service. For that reason, I ask that the new clause be withdrawn.
Florence Eshalomi
I understand the Minister’s hesitancy about supporting the new clause, which he claims is because of bureaucracy. Does he recognise that many local authorities and others are conducting a big wave of insourcing, including my local authority, Lambeth Council, which decided last year to bring back its cleaning and maintenance service? The feedback from residents was that the contractors providing the outsourced service were not delivering, so the council has now brought it back in-house.
A number of local authorities under different political parties are following in the same vein. The new clause would help us to help them to look at the key issue of value for money and ensure that every pound spent on contracts delivers value for money. The new clause is not about extra bureaucracy, but about taxpayers’ money being spent on the right contracts. Does the Minister agree that the new clause would help those organisations to do that?
Alex Burghart
The hon. Lady gives a very good example of how the existing regime allows for outsourcing. We are building on that: the playbook that I described is there to help all contracting authorities to make better decisions about whether they want to outsource or to keep things in-house. She is quite right that there are circumstances in which keeping things in-house is a very good thing, but we feel strongly that the new clause would create a series of unnecessary requirements when the tools to insource are already at the disposal of authorities.
Question put and negatived.
New Clause 5
Carbon reduction plans
“(1) Subject to subsection (4), contracting authorities must obtain, assess and publish a carbon reduction plan from all suppliers under consideration for qualifying contracts before entering into a public contract with any supplier.
(2) In this section, ‘qualifying contract’ means—
(a) a public contract with an average value of more than £5 million per annum (excluding VAT) over the duration of the contract,
(b) any contract to be awarded under a framework agreement anticipated to be greater than £5 million per annum (excluding VAT) in value, or
(c) any contract to be awarded by reference to a dynamic market which is anticipated to be greater than £5 million per annum (excluding VAT) in value.
(3) For a qualifying contract of the type referred to in subsection (2)(a), a ‘carbon reduction plan’ must contain—
(a) the supplier’s current greenhouse gas emissions,
(b) confirmation of the supplier’s commitment to achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 for their UK supply chain, operations, products and services,
(c) intermediate targets for reductions in their greenhouse gas emissions at no more than 5 year intervals, beginning with the date of award of the contract,
(d) as far as they are able, the greenhouse gas emissions attributable to performance of the contract,
(e) as far as they are able, targets for reductions in those greenhouse gas emissions, and
(f) other environmental management measures in effect which will be applied when performing the contract.
(4) For the qualifying contracts of the type described in subsection (2)(b) and (2)(c), a carbon reduction plan should contain the matters specified in subsection (3)(a), (b) and (c) only.
(5) In complying with requirements imposed by the regulations, a contracting authority must have regard to guidance prepared from time to time by an appropriate authority.
(6) ‘Greenhouse gas’ has the meaning given in section 92 of the Climate Change Act 2008, and ‘emissions’ has the meaning given in section 97 of that Act.”—(Florence Eshalomi.)
This new clause would require company-level carbon reduction plans for bidders for certain larger contracts, including information and targets from suppliers on the emissions attributable to the performance of the contract. It also specifies that the Carbon Reduction Plan must be a key performance indicator for certain contracts.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Florence Eshalomi
New clause 5 would introduce carbon reduction targets for certain large contracts, in general those worth £5 million or more. The new clause is inspired by the Government’s own procurement policy note 06/21, which outlines their intention to take into account suppliers’ plans to reduce carbon emissions when considering large contracts.
Climate change is the biggest threat we face as the human race. Everyone in this room must recognise and agree that we need to reduce emissions urgently if we are to avoid this crisis. We must not ignore or under-appreciate the impact that reforms to our procurement system will have on our carbon emissions. However, I fear that the Bill is a missed opportunity to deliver real change in environmental standards in the procurement system.
That is particularly true considering what the Government have already chosen to remove from the Bill. Removing amendments on social value and the procurement policy statement, for example, that would have incorporated emissions will do nothing to tackle climate change in our procurement system, and there is hardly anything else in the Bill to drive real progress on carbon emissions.
Alex Burghart
New clause 5 would require contracting authorities to obtain carbon reduction plans from suppliers for contracts above £5 million per annum. In 2021, the Government implemented a procurement policy that required suppliers to provide carbon reduction plans when bidding for major Government contracts. The new clause would limit opportunities to amend and improve the policy as our ambition to achieve net zero progresses.
I assure the Committee that contracting authorities will continue to be able to take account of suppliers’ net zero commitments and carbon reduction plans, environmental targets, and climate change where they are relevant to the subject of the contract. The Bill and our existing policies already allow that in individual procurements, which is absolutely in line with the Government’s commitment to achieving net zero by 2050.
A key Government commitment is to encourage small and medium-sized enterprises into the Government supply chain. We are of course mindful of the impact that policy and legislation have on suppliers. The purpose of the Bill is to reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens in the procurement regime to support SME suppliers in winning Government contracts. In our view, contracting authorities are able to deal with these matters as it stands, and we will not be supporting the new clause.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Florence Eshalomi
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would disapply section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 where a breach of non-discrimination occurs under clause 89 and is caused by a representation to the contracting authority by a Member of Parliament, a Member of the House of Lords or a senior civil servant. In practice, this would ensure that relief is granted in the case of a court finding that there has been unequal treatment between traders as a result of the type of lobbying seen in the VIP lane scandal during the covid-19 pandemic.
In the debate on amendment 103, tabled by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, the Minister said:
“We understand—indeed, we agree with—the intent behind the amendment, but the Bill already covers such a scenario via robust requirements for contracting authorities to ensure equal treatment and address conflicts of interest. The bottom line is that if a conflict of interest puts a supplier at an unfair advantage, they must be treated as an excluded supplier and cannot be given a direct award.”––[Official Report, Procurement Public Bill Committee, 7 February 2023; c. 139.]
I do not doubt that VIP lanes would breach provisions relating to equal treatment of suppliers, and I do not doubt that those provisions were broken during the VIP lane scandal. In fact, that was at the heart of Mrs Justice O’Farrell’s ruling in the PestFix case last year, in which she stated that the operation of a high-priority VIP lane was
“in breach of the obligation of equal treatment”.
Despite that finding, the plaintiffs in the case were not awarded remedy, and it is unclear what checks and balances are in place to ensure that a future Government will not rely on VIP lanes, even when they know that their application will fall foul of the law. That is summed up by Mrs Justice O’Farrell’s closing remarks:
“In these proceedings, the Claimants have established that operation of the High Priority Lane was in breach of the obligation of equal treatment under the PCR. However, the court has found that, even if PestFix and Ayanda had not been allocated to the High Priority Lane, nevertheless they would have been treated as priority offers because of the substantial volumes of PPE they could supply that were urgently needed. Although there is public interest in the outcome of this challenge, the contracts in question have been performed (or expired) and it is sufficient that the illegality is marked by this judgment. Therefore the granting of relief does not meet the test in section 31(2B). In those circumstances, the court must refuse to grant the relief sought.”
I believe that, at its heart, that ruling shows the flaws in the current system. In debates on other amendments and clauses, I have argued for more transparency in the Bill in relation to conflicts of interest. The Minister knows that the Opposition believe that shining a light on proceedings as early as possible helps to limit the time in which illegal activities can occur. Surely, however, as the Government rejected our earlier amendments, they must see the need to tighten up the consequences of acting against the law. We know that the use of the VIP lane was illegal, and we know that companies that got into the VIP lane were 10 times more likely to win a contract, but the fact is that we do not know whether there have been any real consequences associated with the use of the illegal VIP lane.
I hope the Minister will agree that the public are rightly angry about the use of the VIP lane. They are angry that billions of pounds were wasted on personal protective equipment that was not up to standard. They expect to see justice when illegal activities are carried out. What is the point of putting laws in place if there are no consequences? New clause 6 would tighten up action against activity that breaches rules on conflicts of interest by ensuring that the courts are able to grant relief when lobbying by MPs, peers or senior civil servants results in unfair treatment. I hope the Committee will support the new clause.
Alex Burghart
New clause 6 would, in circumstances where a breach of the non-discrimination principle in clause 89 was caused by a representation to the contracting authority by an MP, lord or senior civil servant, disapply section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 in the context of any judicial review.
Section 31(2A) essentially prohibits a court from granting relief, including awarding damages, where it is highly likely that the conduct complained of did not make a significant difference to the contracting authority’s decision. In other words, the intention of the new clause is to enable a court to grant relief when lobbying for a contract to be awarded to a particular supplier has led to alleged unequal treatment, even where the contracting authority can demonstrate that it would have selected the chosen supplier regardless of any lobbying.
While I understand that the new clause is motivated by a desire to ensure consequences if an MP, lord or senior civil servant lobbies a contracting authority to award a contract to a certain bidder, resulting in the unequal treatment of other suppliers, the Bill is crystal clear with respect to conflicts of interest, and there are consequences if those statutory duties are breached. Clause 81(3) states that if
“a conflict of interest puts a supplier at an unfair advantage”
and if steps to mitigate cannot avoid that advantage, the supplier must be excluded.
Under part 9, suppliers may seek legal remedies, including relief, if they have suffered or are at risk of suffering loss or damages as a result of a breach of statutory duties. Suppliers that have lost out on contracts as a result of such unlawful behaviour are best placed to hold contracting authorities to account.
Additionally, in respect of suspected non-compliances with the Bill, including conflicts of interest that put a supplier at an unfair advantage, an appropriate authority can investigate upon the request of any party, using part 10 of the Bill or other powers, and issue recommendations if commercial practices do not comply with the Bill’s provisions. There is simply no need for the Bill, which has additional remedies for breach of statutory duty, to start interfering with the rule of law applicable to judicial review claims. As a result, we respectfully ask that the new clause be withdrawn.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Alex Burghart
It is a pleasure to respond to the debate on new clause 7, which mandates a review of the procurement of the fleet solid support ships programme and requires findings to be published by the end of the year. Replying to my friend the hon. Member for Islwyn on this subject is sadly reminiscent of the second Anthony Joshua versus Usyk fight, where Joshua bravely, but unfortunately, deployed similar tactics to the ones he had used previously and met the same conclusion. The hon. Gentleman will be delighted to hear that monitoring is already part of the MOD’s approach to the programme. The MOD will track the process of the overall FSS programme, as well as social value and recapitalisation activities, through regular governance forums such as the project delivery board and the recapitalisation and social value committee.
In support of the forums, Team Resolute is obliged to produce regular reports demonstrating the progress achieved. Examples include reports detailing execution against Harland & Wolff’s shipyard infrastructure works commitments, and earned value progress in terms of design development and the ship build. Additionally, regular site visits will be undertaken by expert personnel in the Department.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that the contract will bring hundreds of jobs to the UK. The majority of the contract spend will take place in the UK, with most manufacture activities taking place in UK shipyards in Belfast and Appledore. All three ships will be integrated at Belfast, along with all testing and commissioning. As he knows, these are large ships, second only in length to the carriers. The use of a world-class auxiliary shipbuilder allows for technology and skills transfer to the UK, and for UK capability and employment to sustainably step up to deliver this contract. Team Resolute also said that it intends to use UK-sourced steel wherever it is practical to do so, and steel will be procured in accordance with Cabinet Office guidelines. It is sad to hear the hon. Gentleman talking this great programme down.
All this work will enable early identification and mitigation action against the risk of non-delivery. Key performance indicators for the programme will be reported against, with several relating to UK labour and the UK supply chain. MOD Ministers will receive regular updates throughout the programme, particularly in relation to UK skills development and ramp-up in the initial stages of the contract. That will supplement other regular reporting on FSS that the MOD has committed to providing to His Majesty’s Treasury.
The Bill sets out the framework for public procurement for contracting authorities generally across England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is therefore not appropriate to set out requirements for one specific project, the timescale for which is finite. For those reasons, I respectfully request that the amendment be withdrawn.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Alex Burghart
I am very happy to play Ray Robinson to the hon. Gentleman’s LaMotta. He will remember fondly, as I do, that Jake LaMotta said, “I fought Sugar Ray Robinson so many times, it is a wonder I don’t have diabetes.” I will cease the boxing chat there, Mr Mundell, lest you get up and bite off my ear, as Mike Tyson did to Evander Holyfield in their second fight.
I am pleased to hear the hon. Member for Islwyn say that value for money and transparency lie at the heart of the Bill, because they do, and it is because of those principles that we feel the new clause is unnecessary. However, it is also unnecessary because the National Audit Office already conducts a yearly audit of the defence equipment plan and undertakes regular audits on defence programmes. Further scrutiny of the performance of defence programmes is undertaken by the Infrastructure and Projects Authority, which tracks the progress of projects currently in the Government major projects portfolio, the details of which are published in its annual review. As an independent statutory body, the NAO decides independently of Government where to focus its resources, and determines what projects and public bodies it audits at what point in time. The new clause would interfere with its statutory independence.
At the heart of the proposal is a desire to see defence procurement improve—an objective the Government share—but I encourage the Committee to follow closely the implementation of the Government’s defence and security industrial strategy, published in March 2021, which will increase the pace, agility and management of the Ministry of Defence’s acquisition process. We respectfully request that the new clause be withdrawn.
The Chair
I do not know much about boxing, but I know that when there is no knockout, the judges decide.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Florence Eshalomi
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would enable a future procurement system to mandate that procurement transactions be carried out in a specific way. It would build on the powers in clause 95 relating to procurement transactions, but take those powers further to ensure that everyone undertaking procurement under this regime uses a well-designed, specified system that is common throughout.
It is rare in a Bill Committee for the Opposition to propose giving unrestrained and optional power to the Government via an amendment or new clause, so I hope the Minister is delighted by our new clause. It is almost a knockout clause, I would say. We understand, and indeed welcome, the measures to introduce some degree of commonality across procurement through methods such as a single online system. Commonality within the procurement system brings many advantages. It can save contracting authorities the time, effort and money of running individual systems; boost the public’s understanding of procurement data and mechanisms, indirectly boosting transparency; and make our procurement system easier to navigate for suppliers, helping SMEs to bid for contracts efficiently, rather than having to shape-shift around the application process.
Around the world, increased commonality has been seen to increase efficiency and create a system that is the envy of the world. The Minister need only speak to one of his own party’s MPs, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), about Ukraine’s ProZorro procurement system. Systems such as ProZorro and the Republic of Korea’s procurement system bring in a specified system that is used by everyone and that uses cutting edge digital technology to reduce bureaucracy. That was referenced in the Government’s Green Paper on procurement, which said:
“This lack of standardisation, transparency and interoperability is preventing the UK from harnessing the opportunities that open, common and shared data could bring. The ability to analyse spend, manage suppliers, counter fraud and corruption and see inside the supply chain to ensure compliance with government policies. The experience of other nations (e.g. Ukraine and South Korea) is that driving forward with a clear digital procurement strategy focused on transparency results in greater participation and increased value for money driven by competition.”
There is already international precedent for the introduction of a specified procurement system, and the Government have stated these lofty aims, so why should the Bill not make provision to go further?
Our new clause would not mandate immediate action, because we know that this would be complex and take time to set up. However, should this Government or a future one want to introduce a Ukraine-style system, it would be a shame if they found that difficult under the Bill. I therefore hope that the Minister will agree with us and support the new clause.
Alex Burghart
The hon. Lady’s new clause is on the procurement transaction system. We are absolutely delighted with the Opposition’s enthusiasm for our online system.
The Bill already contains provisions for the establishment of the online system for the purpose of publishing notices, documents and other information under clause 93. It also requires the online system to be free of charge and accessible for people with disabilities. Furthermore, as the Committee will remember, clause 95 requires certain information to be shared in a particular way, including through a specified online system, and requires contracting authorities to keep records of any communication between the authority and a supplier that is made for the purposes of, or in connection with, a covered procurement.
The online system will enable everyone to have better access to public procurement data, in particular because the detailed input received during the early design of the Bill from countries such as Ukraine and South Korea, which have specialist knowledge of designing procurement transparency systems. I am honoured to be able to say that my next meeting after this sitting is with the Deputy Prime Minister of Ukraine, at which we will discuss this very issue. I will thank him for his country’s input to our work going forward in the Cabinet Office.
Florence Eshalomi
Does the Minister not feel that the meeting would be even more beneficial and fantastic if he were to tell the Deputy Prime Minister that he had accepted the new clause?
Alex Burghart
I will be delighted to tell our friends in Ukraine that, because of the advice they gave us earlier, there is no need for the new clause. We have a great partnership with Ukraine, which straddles many areas, and a growing number of them. We have benefited from the Ukrainians’ expertise, and from that of colleagues in South Korea, which has very advanced digital government and economy.
As a result of the work we have done and are doing, citizens will be able to scrutinise spending decisions, suppliers will be able to identify new opportunities to bid and collaborate, and buyers will be able to analyse the market and benchmark their performance against others on spending with SMEs. The Government have already committed to sharing procurement information through the online system, and the new clause would simply replicate requirements that are in the Bill already.
The hon. Member for Vauxhall asked how we know whether future Governments will be bound, but the proposal will happen within the lifetime of this Government. The Government are committed to it, to delivering on it and to learning from the experiences of colleagues abroad. We therefore respectfully ask that the new clause be withdrawn.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Quite right. This housing association had no footprint at all in Brighton and Hove and a very limited footprint in East Sussex. The women who were in that organisation’s housing might find it more difficult to go to them, because it is not a truly independent service.
Whether that is the case or not, what then happened was that the refuges and some of the counselling services that are provided in the city were sub-contracted out to some of the RISE people. So RISE picked up some bits of work, but not all of it. It could not offer the women wraparound support, just support in some very specific areas, so the service potentially became worse for women. A top-slice of the money has been taken out of the area for management and bid-writing fees and costs, which such organisations all take, and given to an organisation that is based nowhere near Sussex and does not have that specialism.
When women then complained and protested during covid, through covid-compliant protests, they were threatened by the police and told their protest was wrong and that they should not be protesting. Interestingly, the police allowed my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and me to address the covid-compliant demonstration. There was no problem with that; it was only as we left that the police pounced on the women organisers, in front of their children, and tried to fine them. That was particularly egregious. I represented those women and said that I would give statements to support them, and in the end the police dropped the case.
Even when women tried to speak up, they were abused and harassed by the police—they were women who have come through domestic violence and who have been RISE service-users. It was important to commission RISE, but it was also important that women themselves had their voices heard. At all stages—in the commissioning and the outcome—women’s voices were removed and shut down. New clause 16 would give that protection.
Even if the Minister does not support the new clause—I would like him to, but I assume he might not—I hope he will reassure us that he will strengthen the section in the guidelines on women-specific services, such as those who have suffered domestic abuse, and place additional emphasis put on ensuring that local women’s voices are heard, while also allowing some of the competitive tendering to be waived. That is already possible, but we need stronger guidelines, particularly for multi-authority procurement. We will push the new clause to a vote, but I hope the Minister provides those reassurances, as I suspect we all broadly agree on the issue.
Alex Burghart
New clause 16 seeks to ensure that authorities have regard to social value when carrying out procurement for services to support victims of violence against women and girls. Before I discuss the specifics, I should say that the Committee has debated over several days the centrality to this legislation of the fact that we are moving from a world of most economically advantageous tender to most advantageous tender—from MEAT to MAT. That gives contracting authorities the opportunity to make decisions that are not based solely on economic advantage. That will cover all areas, not just the specific area outlined in the new clause.
There is already a legal requirement in this area. Contracting authorities are already required to consider how social value might be improved for all types of service contracts under the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012. That Act requires the authority to consider when placing a public service contract
“how what is proposed to be procured might improve the economic, social and environmental well-being of the area where the authority primarily exercises its functions, and how, in conducting the process of procurement, it might act with a view to securing that improvement.”
Florence Eshalomi
I thank the Minister for his remarks, but does he understand the concerns raised by local and national women’s charities? They say that the current guidance does not go far enough and, in their experience, they feel the guidance is ignored in many cases or given very little weighting in the contracts that are then awarded. Does the Minister agree that those organisations have valid concerns?
Alex Burghart
I understand what the hon. Lady is saying. Obviously, the 2012 Act will continue to apply to procurement of services to support victims of violence against women and girls. Moreover, the public benefit objective in clause 12(1)(b) requires contracting authorities to consider the extent to which public money spent on their contracts can deliver greater social value than it otherwise would, for example by encouraging local specialist service providers that understand the particular needs of the communities they serve.
With the combination of existing legislation and this new legislation, with its emphasis on MAT rather than MEAT, we feel that the duty in new clause 16 already exists in law. I therefore respectfully ask that the new clause be withdrawn.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Alex Burghart
New clause 18, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris), would allow public authorities to apply their own policies, under which they would not procure from certain countries because of those countries’ human rights conduct.
It is obviously right and good that human rights abuses have no place in public supply chains, but the new clause is unnecessary and would give authorities too broad a discretion to apply blanket boycotts. Although the new clause would not allow for the singling-out of individual countries, it would allow authorities to exclude suppliers from entire nations without any consideration of whether a supplier itself has had any involvement in abuses or of the steps a supplier has taken to self-clean, both of which are important features of the new exclusions regime to manage risk appropriately and fairly.
Excluding suppliers based on where they are located would be disproportionate and in some cases would be contrary to the UK’s international obligations. The Bill already contains a robust regime for the exclusion of suppliers that are unfit to hold public contracts. Schedules 6 and 7 set out a wide range of exclusion grounds that target the most serious risks to public procurement, including modern slavery and human trafficking. We have taken action to strengthen the way in which those terms are defined, so that suppliers may be excluded where there is sufficient evidence that they are responsible for human rights abuses anywhere in the world, whether or not they have been convicted of an offence.
Guidance already exists to help contracting authorities to address human rights risks and there is well-established practice during procurements. The guidance is detailed, at over 40 pages long, and includes sections on managing risk from new procurements to assessing existing contracts, taking action when victims of modern slavery are identified, supply chain mapping, useful tools, training, and questions to ask.
I will also highlight the new debarment regime provided for in the Bill, which allows Ministers to consider whether any supplier meets one of the grounds for exclusion and whether the issues in question are likely to recur. Suppliers on the debarment list face exclusion across the public sector. This is a significant step forward in our approach to supplier misconduct.
We respectfully request that the new clause be withdrawn.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Alex Burghart
Thank you, Mr Mundell, for chairing so ably and excellently. I thank the Clerks for their fantastic work. I thank my tireless officials, without whose expertise I would not know what to do. I thank Committee members on both sides of the divide. It is only fair to record in Hansard that the Committee has been good-natured, intelligent and at times almost enjoyable. I thank His Majesty’s loyal Opposition for supporting the overall thrust of the Bill, although they do not agree with every detail. We left it in better shape than when it arrived, and I look forward to working with everyone to take it through Report and to Royal Assent.
Florence Eshalomi
I echo the Minister’s comments. I formally thank the Clerks—Sarah, Chris and Huw—for their endless emails and helping me to understand the groupings and procedure. I will be honest and let hon. Members know that this is my first time leading on a Bill Committee. Many years ago, trying to tell a girl from a council estate in Brixton that she would be leading for the Opposition on such a technical Bill would have been out of the question.
The issues that we have discussed are so important. I hope the Minister will see from some of the points that we have made and the amendments that we have tabled that we have an opportunity to ensure that procurement works for everybody, including those from council estates, who may not understand it but will see the impact on their everyday lives. I look forward to discussing the Bill robustly with the Minister again as it goes through its next phases.