Oral Answers to Questions
Andrew Griffith Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
Did the Secretary of State fully disclose to the Civil Service Commission the Labour links of one of the most senior civil service appointments, or the £66,000 donation he received?
Peter Kyle
Every donation that was made to this party in opposition has been declared in the appropriate ways. I am proud to be part of a party that raises standards in public life rather than votes to lower them. [Interruption.] I am also proud to be part of a party that comes into government and attracts talent to working for it, whereas when the Conservatives see talent, they libel it.
Andrew Griffith
Thanks to Whitehall Watch, we have a copy of the form. It is clear the Secretary of State failed to mention the conflicts of interest, as required by the ministerial code. In the words of the Prime Minister’s favourite pop star, some would say he is “Guilty as Sin”. Will he refer himself to the adviser on standards, or do we have to wait for the Prime Minister to finish organising VIP motorcades and do it for him?
Peter Kyle
There we have it—a party that attacks civil servants and the world’s greatest talent gravitating towards this party and this Government, to work for them. When he sees talent in Government, he libels it and saddles the taxpayer with the bill. This Government attract talent and I am proud of that.
Technology in Public Services
Andrew Griffith Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. On behalf of those of us on the Conservative Benches, I welcome you to your place.
I would also like to take this opportunity to welcome the Secretary of State and his Ministers. I congratulate him on a maiden speech that had much in it to commend and congratulate him on his stewardship of what is a fantastic Department. He is fortunate to be supported, as I know from my experience, by a team of outstanding officials. I pay tribute to their deep knowledge and dedication.
Our constituents know that innovation and technology is our future. The Secretary of State’s Department was already at the heart of our mission, supported by a record 29% increase in investment, from 2023 to 2025, to grow the economy and cement Britain’s science and technology superpower status. The former Member for Chippenham, my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) and I left the Department in good shape, with, at that time, an expected underspend in this year’s budget. It may well be that we were better at fending off the Chancellor than the Secretary of State has been. I note the changes to the machinery of government, which see government digital services and the incubator for AI and other functions move from the Cabinet Office to his Department. Whether or not that is a good idea, time will tell, but what is clear is that it makes it even more important that he and his team now deliver—and where they do so, seriously, they will have our support.
We could not open this parliamentary term on a more important subject. Productivity drains in the public sector take money directly out of taxpayers’ pockets, and that is not fair on hard-working families. We know that the public sector accounts for roughly 20% of our national output, and that is often a source of national pride, but the hard truth is that public service productivity is far lower than that in the private sector. Few Departments —the Secretary of State talked about this—are without opportunities to deliver public services better and at a lower cost to the taxpayer. We can, together, transform NHS productivity, and make use of advanced technology and sensors to better secure our borders or defend our country—even from new domains such as space. We can introduce driverless trains to stop trade unions holding passengers to ransom, support farmers and food producers wishing to wean themselves off migrant labour through agri-tech and robotics, implement better use of tagging and “smart” prisons, and improve case flow in the criminal justice system—and a great deal more.
There are many brilliant officials across the civil service who are helping to foster this tech revolution, but I am afraid that their morale is being undermined by this Government’s early approach to appointments. It is on their behalf that I ask the Secretary of State, “What was it, Secretary of State, about the £66,000-donating, Labour-supporting Emily Middleton that first attracted you enough to make her one of the senior civil servants in your Department?” For the truth is that there are real questions to answer. What exercise did the Secretary of State go through between announcing the new Department on Monday and appointing a new director general later in the very same week to satisfy himself that not one single civil servant across Government was fit to perform that role? Did he disclose the £66,000 donation to the permanent secretary on his appointment? Did he tell the Civil Service Commission about the £66,000 donation and the links to Labour? Was is him or someone in his office who told Emily Middleton to delete her LinkedIn account? Why, given that the ministerial code is clear about the duty of Ministers to
“ensure that no conflict arises, or could reasonably be perceived to arise”,
did he not recuse himself from all decisions and discussions on this matter? If the Secretary of State will not use this opportunity to come clean, to answer all these questions and to publish the relevant correspondence, I really think it is time for Sir Laurie Magnus, the independent adviser on ministerial interests, to investigate.
Mr Holden
My hon. Friend has raised an important point on a specific issue. This is not a junior appointment, or a private office appointment, or an advice appointment. This is a director general appointment, at the second most senior level of the civil service. I am not aware, and I wonder if my hon. Friend is, of any occasion on which such an appointment has been made in such a way in the past.
Andrew Griffith
My right hon. Friend has made an important point, and he is right: this is a director general-level appointment in the civil service, second only to that of the permanent secretary and one of, I believe, only three director general-level appointments in the entirety of the Secretary of State’s Department. This is someone with the power to hire and fire and advance and promote civil servants, and someone—[Interruption.] This is an important point. Once this Rubicon has been crossed, once the civil service has political—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. Will Members make their remarks to the Chamber rather than exchanging them across the Benches?
Andrew Griffith
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will make some progress. I understand that colleagues will want to move on to other points, but this is a very important point. Once this Rubicon has been crossed, it will not be possible to un-bake that cake of an independent civil service. Imagine the ambitious civil servants—the directors, the directors general—who never even had the chance to be considered for this role!
Max Wilkinson
Interested as I am in this question of process and the discussions about cronyism, I turned up here to listen to a debate about tech and public services. I was wondering whether the hon. Gentleman had any opinions on that subject.
Andrew Griffith
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have a chance to speak about exactly that subject later. However, it is critical and, I think, a point of commonality across the House that we can deliver change only through professional and competent civil servants, and it is important that the morale of the Secretary of State’s Department, like that of every other Whitehall Department, is maintained.
Andrew Griffith
I have finished making my points on this subject, and I am happy to move on in the interests of the debate.
Gareth Snell
The hon. Gentleman has talked about the morale of the civil service. Would he care to tell us how he thinks that was affected by a former Prime Minister’s referring to the civil service as “the blob”, and by Cabinet Ministers walking around their offices leaving passive-aggressive little notes asking, “Where are you?” It is very easy to make the snide comments that the hon. Gentleman is making, but it is not very relevant, is it?
Andrew Griffith
I accept that we have strayed some way from the important topic that the Secretary of State came here to talk about tonight. Much as I would enjoy continuing this discussion with the hon. Member, I am happy to move on and address more of the Secretary of State’s points.
It was the last Government who launched a wide-ranging public service productivity review to address these issues, and to understand for the first time how technology can transform our economy. It was the last Government—this was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans)—who decided to harness the potential of artificial intelligence in healthcare with the NHS AI lab and a £3.4 billion investment fund to cut admin and fast-track diagnoses. I was not 100% clear about this, and I do not want to wilfully misinterpret what was said by the Secretary of State, but I hope that the fund continues and we continue to see that opportunity.
The public have benefited directly from the sort of vast improvements that the Secretary of State talked about, thanks to the last Government’s embrace of technology. It now takes less than three weeks to receive a new passport—often much less—thanks to the adoption of cloud-based working practices. As of March this year, 99% of passport applications were processed within the target timeframe, a performance which, sadly, I do not think many other parts of Government achieve.
Some will have concerns about what the implementation of new technologies in the public sector will mean for those who work in it. If we are honest, we must recognise—and the Secretary of State well knows—that the business case for many new technologies has an impact on workers. The Secretary of State must filter out naysayers, even if they happen to be his party’s union paymasters. Whatever those paymasters say, disruptive technology is good for the public and vital to economic growth.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman claims to support UK technology and science, but he is on the record as opposing solar and wind farms. Is he actually a shadow anti-science Secretary?
Andrew Griffith
I could not be happier to debate that topic, but I am very conscious of the number of Members who, I was told, are trying to make their maiden speeches, and I think it is the case, Madam Deputy Speaker, that every intervention we take at this stage potentially jeopardises their chance of doing so. In short, however, there is a very fine place for solar: it is on the roofs of warehouses, car parks, supermarkets and new homes, where appropriate, but it is not on productive farmland.
In government, we significantly increased spending on public sector research—by 29%, to £20 billion in the current financial year—and our recent manifesto pledged to increase that by a further 10% over the life of this Parliament. May I ask the Secretary of State, and the Minister who will wind up the debate, if they can pledge to match that ambition to a sector that is desperate to see such certainty of funding?
The Secretary of State has my sympathy. I cannot imagine how difficult his phone call with the University of Edinburgh, which had already invested £30 million in the exascale supercomputer, must have been. This was a national facility that would have enabled significant advances in AI, medical research, climate science and clean energy innovation. The investment was fully costed, amounting over many years to what the NHS burns through in three days. There seems to be confusion at the Treasury: just because semiconductors are becoming smaller in size, it does not mean that the Secretary of State’s Department must follow suit.
Peter Kyle
The shadow Secretary of State said that the exascale project was fully costed. Could he confirm that it was fully funded too?
Andrew Griffith
Yes. The exascale investment was being delivered through UK Research and Innovation, an enterprise that receives nearly £9 billion every single year and that, under our manifesto, would have had a growing level of investment across the entirety of the spending review. There were plans in place to deliver the investment, which is why Edinburgh was so confident that it would be delivered. It was a clear priority in our spending plans and communicated in writing by the Secretary of State’s predecessor to the chief executive of UKRI. Notwithstanding the fact that the Treasury seems to have got his tongue immediately upon taking office, a project that the Treasury never loved seems to have been mysteriously cancelled. The project was being delivered by UKRI, an organisation with significant financial resources that far exceeded the £1.3 billion cost of the supercomputer. It is the wrong decision at the wrong time.
Dawn Butler
I wonder how the shadow Secretary of State feels about the Rosalind Franklin Laboratory in Leamington Spa, which received over £1 billion in Government funding. The last Government put it on Rightmove.
Andrew Griffith
The last Government did not do that; it was an independent institute that had multiple sources of funding. As the Secretary of State and his Ministers will discover, funding of that nature is competitive funding that is allotted by independent research councils. It would not have been within the gift of me or any other Minister to abrogate that competitive funding process.
Inevitably, there are projects that are funded and projects that are not funded, but the exascale computer was a very clear priority. It sat within the overall financial resources of UKRI and, under our Government, there was an expanding level of resource. People should have absolute confidence that the programme would have continued and been delivered in the context of the much larger amount of money that is spent through the Department, but by the Government as a whole. That was a good decision, and it would have had huge benefits to the UK. The chief executive of UKRI has talked at length about the benefits, and I think the Government are making the wrong decision. I urge the Secretary of State to go back, lock horns with the Treasury and seek to continue the project before it is too late, before contracts are cancelled and before technology is not procured.
Peter Kyle
The hon. Gentleman has said quite clearly that it was announced in the Budget, but it was contingent on a manifesto that had not even been written at the time of the Budget, in order to deliver the money promised in the Budget. He is an accountant by trade. Could he explain to the House why a Chancellor of the Exchequer standing up and making a commitment for which he has not one penny allocated until potentially winning a general election, which has not been called, is irresponsible?
Andrew Griffith
The Secretary of State will understand that at any point in time, a Department may go through a triennial spending review, although actually the triennial spending review had not fully happened. Governments also make forward-looking commitments and declarations of intent, and commission work, whether from arm’s length bodies such as UK Research and Investment or from officials in the Department, to deliver their priorities. I do not think that the Secretary of State disputes that this was a clear priority. Looking at the aggregated spend through UKRI and the different funding councils that were going to deliver the supercomputer project, including the Science and Technology Facilities Council, there is no question but that it would have been delivered. It was not contingent on growth; a Government of any persuasion, advised by their independent civil servants, would have delivered the programme through organisations such as UKRI. That is why Edinburgh University was so committed to it. It had been announced by the previous Government, and equipment was being procured.
As we seek to compete with modern states that are busily investing in exactly this sort of facility, it is important to recognise that it is wrong to simply recoil from the project. It is not something that the Treasury ever loved, and the Secretary of State has to push hard, as we did, but it is wrong to allow a step back on that brilliant project, which would unlock so many of the benefits that the Secretary of State talked about this evening. Again, I ask him to lock horns with the Treasury, and use every opportunity to see what can be done to revisit the decision. It is a very important project, and part of an ambition that I think we share for the future of this country.
In conclusion, the first duty of government should be to do no harm, and we cannot afford to get this agenda wrong. We will judge the Government by their actions. Where they are bold in order to deliver better outcomes at a lower cost to the taxpayer, they can count on our full support. We will help this progressive Secretary of State to face down the union luddites in his party. We on the Opposition Benches will support efforts to place the private sector at the heart of reform of the NHS, but the people of the UK cannot afford half-hearted efforts, the Treasury curtailing the departmental budget to pay for public sector pay rises elsewhere, or the abandonment of real ambition that can unlock the potential of technology to benefit this country for years to come.