Debate on the Address
Bill Esterson Excerpts(4 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to speak in this Chamber. I have had the pleasure of doing so for the past 14 years, but it is not half a big improvement to be standing on the Government side of the Chamber. I look forward to giving full support to this new Labour Government in their endeavour, as they take their first steps in changing our country for the better.
I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle) and for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss), who gave outstanding maiden speeches. They have set the bar rather high for the rest of my hon. Friends, as I think they would all agree, but I wish them all well in their endeavours. Indeed, I congratulate all new and returning Members.
We have an inheritance after 14 years, and I would just say to some of the Conservative Members who have defended the previous Government’s record, or at least have attempted to do so as they have made their various leadership pitches, that the economic performance of those 14 years tells a rather different story, with low living standards, a cost of living crisis and low growth. In fact, growth has been so low that, had we maintained the growth of the last Labour Government, GDP would be £140 billion higher, every household would on average have £5,800 more every single year and there would be £50 billion more, on the same tax rates, for spending and investing in our public services and our infrastructure. That is what 14 years of Conservative Government have meant for this country, and to cap it all we had the Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng exuberance of the mini-Budget, with the disastrous crashing of the economy, which has left people paying high interest rates even now, two years later. That is the record we inherit, it is what we have to fix and we have made a very good start.
In the Gracious Speech, the importance of economic stability was underlined with the announcement of a Budget responsibility Bill to deliver stability and to attract investment by creating confidence throughout the economy. There is the national wealth fund to attract private investment and to invest in the massive opportunity available to us in this country, which, almost uniquely in western Europe, is through clean energy, with our geographical and geological opportunities, as well as our marvellous tech in this country, our science base and our universities. There are the reforms to planning to deliver infrastructure and housing, and the reform to skills to deliver for our workers and for their employers. The investment we have announced in transport, which is so important—the improvements in rail and in buses and the commitment to sustainable aviation fuel—show that this is a Government who actually understand the importance of integrated transport in delivering societal and economic improvements.
Turning to the impact on my constituency, we, like everybody in this House, will benefit from the commitments to take action on NHS and dental waiting lists, and to improve appointments, as well as to recruit additional teachers and to bring in breakfast club places for our children. All of those will make a massive immediate difference, and they are part of the down payment that the Prime Minister committed to during the election campaign and reiterated in his brilliant speech earlier. In my constituency, one piece of legislation announced today above all is of particular significance. I represent many people whose loved ones died at Hillsborough, or who were injured or who attended, so I am very pleased—along with all of my Merseyside and Liverpool city region colleagues, and indeed many more in this House—for everyone who has campaigned so hard for justice for 35 years. The legal duty of candour on all public officials and authorities will now be created, as it should have been so many years ago.
I am thrilled at the announcement about and the commitment to mental health in the Gracious Speech. Maghull health park in my constituency arguably has the most comprehensive array of mental health services in Europe, with medium and low secure provision to go with the well known high-secure Ashworth hospital, which is the best arrangement on a single location. Mersey Care NHS foundation trust, along with the Liverpool city region combined authority and Sefton council all want to see, as do I, investment in a world-leading diagnostic and research mental health facility on the same site. What we heard in the Gracious Speech gives me great confidence that such investment is likely to be available so that we can make the most of what we are already very good at in this country and make so much more of it. It must be right, as the sovereign said in the other place, that mental health should have the same attention as physical health.
This brings me on to speak in more detail about energy. The Liverpool city region and the north-west of England are supremely well placed to be at the heart of the Government’s plans for investment in clean energy and energy security. Contrary to what some Conservative Members have been saying, this is about jobs, cheaper transport and lower energy bills. It is an economic investment as much as it is an environmental one. It is of course essential that we support workers in the oil and gas industry, so that we avoid the mistakes of deindustrialisation, and that there are jobs and training for people to make the transition and take advantage of the lower-carbon future that we all know is coming.
In the Liverpool city region and across the country, it is absolutely right that we make the most of opportunities in fixed and floating offshore wind. I am so pleased that one of the Secretary of State’s first acts has been to end the ban on onshore wind, and indeed that he has announced three new solar farms. In the north-west and elsewhere there are plans for hydrogen, for carbon capture and storage, and for nuclear, and uniquely in the north-west, in the city region, we have great plans for the Mersey tidal project. They are all key to growth, to prosperity and to addressing the climate crisis, so I am thrilled that this is front and centre of Labour’s plans for government.
There are many other aspects of the low-carbon future, including improvement in insulation in housing and plans for solar for people at home. That is something I have invested in, and I have seen the benefits with lower bills already. I would advocate that for everybody, and it is brilliant that we are committed to giving everybody the ability to make the most of such an opportunity.
The Liverpool city region and the north-west are part of the HyNet project, which is a commitment to a series of green hydrogen generation units. We are also committed to improvements in green transport through the roll-out of EV charging points—something that has to happen much more quickly right across the country—and there are already net zero hydrogen buses in service in the city region. Elsewhere in the city region, Glass Futures is leading the way internationally in decarbonising the production of glass, and we are also looking at battery storage.
Whether in the city region or elsewhere in the country, this really is key not just to Labour’s energy mission, but to the mission of sustaining the highest growth in the G7, and whether through investment in energy or improvements in public services, by having growth at the centre we really will see improvements in this country and we really will see a change from what we have seen over the past 14 years. The 14 years of chaos are over, and it is time to turn the page. As the Prime Minister said, it is time to work together—and he offered to do so with all Members in this House and people beyond this House—to start to rebuild Britain. Today’s Gracious Speech is an important down payment in securing Britain’s future.
Ministerial Severance: Reform
Bill Esterson Excerpts(9 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister without Portfolio (Esther McVey)
It has been interesting to hear the Labour party—yes, the Labour party—make the case for the terms and conditions of workers to be changed unilaterally, in one day, and without consultation or a proper review. I am sure that Labour’s union paymasters will be fascinated to hear the case made by the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) today.
I start by making it clear that the motion before the House departs from the fundamental principle that it is the Government of the day—that is the party that won the election, voted in by the public—who are able to determine the business of the House. That is something the House itself has long recognised, in Standing Order No. 14. By setting aside Standing Order No. 14, the motion would enable the Opposition to bring in a Bill and race it through Parliament by proceeding through all its substantive Commons stages in one day. The truth is that if the right hon. Lady is so keen to decide the business of the day in the House, she should not have supported her neighbour, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), to become the Prime Minister. Given that she did support him, she clearly is not all that keen on being in charge of parliamentary business.
Although it is sometimes necessary for Parliament to legislate at pace—in exceptional circumstances and in response to emergencies—this is not a policy matter that warrants setting aside the procedure of the House. To do so would inhibit proper parliamentary scrutiny. We have just had an Opposition day debate on knife crime, which has gone through the roof in Sadiq Khan’s London. Does it not say everything about the priorities of the Labour party that it proposes emergency legislation in respect of this debate and not that one?
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Perhaps the third minute of her speech will be when the Minister starts to talk about the topic, which is ministerial severance pay. The “Minister for common sense” had personal experience of this in 2015, 2018 and 2020, and may soon do so again. In the meantime, can she tell us how she decided which of the payments for which she was eligible to accept and which to turn down? Does she think that decisions on what to accept should remain at the discretion of the individual, even in cases where the individual is guilty of gross misconduct?
Esther McVey
The hon. Member has raised a point about redundancy payments, and that is fundamentally what we are talking about. Severance pay is a redundancy payment, in that Ministers can be turfed out of office without any notice of termination and without any proper consultation. They have been given what would otherwise be called redundancy payments. I entirely agree that people have accepted those redundancy payments, just as Labour Ministers did when the Prime Minister changed from Blair to Brown, and just as Labour Ministers did when Labour went out of office in 2010.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I think the best that can be said for the previous speaker, the hon. Member for Southend West (Anna Firth), was that she spent six minutes and 50 seconds speaking about anything but the motion and then the last 10 seconds on severance pay. I am sure other than that she is a delightful Member of the House, but on this occasion I am afraid she did not really get there.
In supporting the motion today, I want to highlight a trio of payments that were made during the chaotic period in the autumn of 2022, which capture the essence of why the rules on ministerial severance were brought into disrepute during that period and how reforms can fix the problem. It is impossible to make those points without speaking about individual cases, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) said from the Front Bench, and I have informed two Members that I will be discussing the payments given to them as examples of what happened.
If we cast our minds back to September 2022, colleagues will remember that in the earlier days of the premiership of the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) there was some turmoil in her Whips operation. Mind you, the early days were swiftly followed by the middle days, and the final days were not very far behind—and it is fair to say there was turmoil all the way through. Anyway, in those early days, three assistant Whips were sacked and three more put in their place. The appointments were made three days before the mini-Budget and they lasted just 38 days, until the right hon. Member left Downing Street.
The three assistant Whips spent almost their entire time in office propping up a doomed regime while it continued to do huge damage to the country—damage for which my constituents are still paying the price in the shape of crippling mortgage payments. In those circumstances, we might have thought that those who were appointed by the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk would have walked away from their brief time in office feeling some measure of contrition, perhaps even shame, at the role they had played in that disastrous Administration, and wanting only to apologise to their constituents for what they had done.
Instead, unbelievably, each of the three assistant Whips walked away with three months of severance pay—a £4,479 handout from the taxpayer—after just 38 days’ work. They received two and a half times more in severance pay than they were paid in salary during those 38 days. At the same time, a number of departmental Ministers received £5,593 in severance pay, compared with £2,248 for their salary in five and a bit weeks as Ministers. All that happened at a time when people all round the country were struggling to put food on the table, to fill up their car and to pay their bills in the face of a cost of living crisis that those Ministers’ time in office had just made substantially worse.
Average growth in the UK has been 1.5%, compared with the 2% when Labour was in office between 1997 and 2010. That lower growth has meant £150 billion less in GDP, £40 billion less in tax revenues for public services and infrastructure and £10,000 a year less on average per household for each of those years, across the UK. Those are the figures—the price of failure of 14 years of Conservative government. When the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk crashed the economy through her reckless, unfunded mini-Budget, it just turbocharged the damage done. My constituents, and all our constituents, are still living with the consequences of what the then Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), dismissively referred to as “turbulence”, in the form of higher food prices and mortgage payments.
The premium for economic failure, which was created when the right hon. Members for South West Norfolk and for Spelthorne crashed the economy, is still priced into markets today, and private investment in the UK is still at a record low. The scale of severance payments as reward for being part of that disastrous mismanagement of the economy is nothing short of disgraceful. However, it does serves one purpose at least: it makes the case for reform indisputable. It is a shame that the Minister chose not to engage with the substantive point about the severance payment system having been shown not to be fit for purpose as a result of what happened in 2022.
Under Labour’s proposals, the three assistant Whips would have received not a quarter of their annual salary, but a quarter of their actual earnings, reducing their severance payments from £4,479 to £454, which is almost a tenth of what they originally received and a much fairer and more sensible amount. The hon. Member for Southport (Damien Moore) was at pains to point out in his recent comments to the Liverpool Echo that the payment he received was an automatic entitlement—in other words, he was just following the rules as they stand. The £4,479 that he received—compared with the £454 that would have been due had the legislation referred to on the Order Paper been in place—really says it all. The hon. Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher) made a similar defence to the Lancashire Post, to which she said that severance payments
“are governed by Acts of Parliament”.
Our proposal would have seen her severance payment down from £5,593 to £562, which is much more proportionate to her time served.
I am more than happy with what both Members said in public, but I hope that they accept that in no other job would the severance payments from which they benefited be allowed. That was among the questions that the Minister did not address—in what other job is full severance pay available from day one in that way, or in the event of gross misconduct? Those are the reasons why the measures proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury are so important.
The good news is that Conservative Members, including the beneficiaries of excessive payments, have the opportunity to make amends today.
Jerome Mayhew
The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting point, and I want to ask him to explore it a little more. The immediate availability of redundancy payments, if I can call it that, would not be affected by the motion, so is he suggesting that the motion is not fit for purpose either?
Bill Esterson
It sounded to me like the hon. Gentleman was defending the status quo, while we are trying to make the system proportionate and fair. He and his colleagues will have a chance to do something about this unfair system, which has been shown to be completely out of order by what happened in 2022. Those who took advantage of the rules can do something about it by voting with us tonight. Rules, to use the word of the hon. Member for Southport, can be changed, and Acts of Parliament, to use the words of the hon. Member for South Ribble, can be replaced.
This evening, all the Members who benefited from severance payments when the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk resigned can do something about the excessive nature of those payments. They can take advantage of the opportunity that we are offering and take the logical step of voting to change the rules by supporting Labour’s proposal for a fairer and more proportionate severance payment system for Ministers.
Oral Answers to Questions
Bill Esterson Excerpts(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I am pleased that through our new hospitals programme Hampshire Hospitals NHS foundation trust will receive significant investment that will ensure that excellent care is available for my right hon. Friend and all her constituents. I think the trust started its consultation last year and the results are due at the end of March. We look forward to making sure we can deliver the project as quickly as possible, as part of the record capital investment in the NHS to deliver faster, better care to patients everywhere.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I take very seriously my responsibilities to register and declare all my relevant interests. All of them have been declared in accordance with the ministerial code and it is the role of the independent adviser to advise on what it is necessary to publish within that list, including in the case of Ministers’ family members. When specific questions are asked in sessions such as the Liaison Committee, as I have been in dialogue with the Committee, declarations are made on top of that, which I have made. As I have said from the Dispatch Box, my wife has been an investor in British companies over the past years, but that is now something that she has ceased to do going forward.
Tata Steel: Port Talbot
Bill Esterson Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Ghani
The hon. Gentleman is right that the sector has a vast supply chain, and we know how important it is for UK manufacturing. Last week’s data show that we are the world’s eighth largest manufacturer, so supply chains are imperative.
I am also working on an import supply chain strategy to ensure that we are as resilient as possible when importing from countries that may not share our democratic values. Work has been done internally on the supply chain. To secure the money in this package, Tata had to ensure it had a business plan and sight of its supply chains. This work has been ongoing for quite some time, and a lot of it has been commercially sensitive. Now we are able to speak about it, I do not doubt that more will be made public. We will continue to work on the supply chains, and I hope to put forward the import supply chain strategy by the end of the year.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The UK is the only country in the G7 in which steelmaking is in decline. We need to be honest with ourselves that the job losses announced at Tata are a further continuation of that decline.
The Minister said there have been ongoing negotiations for a very long time on the switch to electric arc production, and she has been asked a number of times about the supply of scrap. Why is she not able to tell us that she has a plan to end the export of scrap steel and to secure its use for electric arc production in the UK, now that this decision has been announced?
Ms Ghani
The hon. Gentleman’s opening comment is factually incorrect. He says we are the only country in decline, which is not true. French production has declined by 21%, German production has declined by 13% and Italian production has declined by 12%. It is appropriate to make sure we are accurate in setting the scene. His opening comment was wholly inaccurate.
These commercial decisions are based on business plans and Tata’s relationship with is supply chain. The hon. Gentleman was with me at the event in Parliament last week or the week before, and we have put together a procurement policy note to ensure that we have more UK steel in our supply chains, and definitely in Government contracts. I will continue to do my best to ensure that the number goes on the opposite trajectory to steel produced in the rest of Europe.
Oral Answers to Questions
Bill Esterson Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Paul Scully)
We know that digital skills are a vital building block for developing the workforce of the future, so we are working across Government with educators and employers to grow the pipeline of individuals entering the digital sector. Steps that we have taken include the launch of the Government and industry Digital Skills Council, the introduction of artificial intelligence and data science conversion courses with the Department for Education and the creation of new visa routes with the Home Office to attract international tech talent. We worked with the Department for Education on the launch of skills bootcamps in England and the Government will be investing up to £150 million in the programme, with free, flexible courses lasting up to 16 weeks in subjects such as software engineering, with a guaranteed job interview at the end.
Bill Esterson
In contrast to what the Minister says, more than £600 million of apprenticeship levy funding has been returned to the Treasury in the last year alone, enough to have funded more than 60,000 new apprenticeships. Labour will reform the system to create a growth and skills levy that can be used on a much wider range of training that businesses say they need. Will the Government address the chronic shortage of skills, match Labour’s ambition and give tech businesses what they need to thrive?
Paul Scully
I gave a long answer the first time, so I can give a shorter one this time. We are already acting in that space. On the apprenticeship levy, we always work with employers and supply chains throughout this country to ensure it works as effectively as possible for what businesses need.
Procurement Bill [Lords]
Bill Esterson ExcerptsMonday 9th January 2023
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Procurement Act 2023 View all Procurement Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 75(a) Amendment for Third Reading - (8 Dec 2022)
Jeremy Quin
The right hon. Member refers to Team Resolute, and I am delighted that it won the tender. The majority of that work will be undertaken in British yards—[Interruption.] We could continue to make this a discussion on defence procurement, but I think the rest of the House wants to discuss the Bill before us, as I certainly do.
Bill Esterson
The Minister says that he is here to talk about a modern procurement system for the UK, but The Guardian is saying today that a Conservative peer who advised the Government during the pandemic helped a company to secure a £50-million contract after being introduced to the firm by another peer with financial interests in that company. Can the Minister tell us exactly which clause in the Bill he is putting forward today would have prevented that extreme example of cronyism from happening?
Jeremy Quin
Alas, it is a great loss to me, but I have not read The Guardian today and I am not in a position to comment in detail on what the hon. Gentleman has said. If he goes through the Bill in detail, as I and other Members have, he will find the parts that refer to declarations of conflicts of interest. These are issues that we will be significantly improving through the Bill to ensure that there can be no doubt that integrity lies at the heart of our procurements. That has always been the case, but it will be even more entrenched as a result of the provisions of this Bill.
Jeremy Quin
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make some progress. If I give two chances to every Member, we will be here for a much longer time.
There are currently hundreds of procurement regulations spread over four different regimes for different types of procurement. We will consolidate them into a single regime. This will remove duplication and create one rulebook that everyone can understand and use, with sectoral differences only where absolutely necessary, such as for reasons of defence or national security.
Jeremy Quin
I recognise the frustration of the company in my hon. Friend’s constituency. He should take up the specifics of that with my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary, but more generally he raises an extremely valuable point, not just in the health sector, but more broadly, about the ease of doing business with Government for SMEs. The Bill contains a range of measures on this: it puts a duty on procurers to ensure that they are considering the specific needs of SMEs; it ensures there is a 30-day payment period; it ensures that pipelines are put out well in advance; it says, “You don’t need to be insured to do the job before you have won it”; and, above all, it provides for one entry point and allows companies to set out in one place what they are as a smaller company before they even start thinking about the tender they are applying for. All those are incredibly valuable components to make it easier for an SME to thrive.
Jeremy Quin
I will not give way at this stage. I thank the hon. Gentleman for the offer, but I think I should be making a little more progress.
In delivering value for money, the Bill will require procurement teams to take account of national priorities, as set out in a new national procurement policy statement. These are national priorities such as improving supply chain resilience, enhancing skills, driving innovation and, of course, protecting the environment. Procurers will be able to give greater weight to bids that support such priorities. I know that in the other place there is a strong desire to pursue particular interests and include a range of policies in the Bill. The Government instead believe that that is a purpose of the NPPS. We want to keep this legislation as clear and simple as possible; the intention is that we allow procurement to keep pace with evolving policy priorities and we do not swamp contractors and SMEs in paperwork.
The Bill will accelerate spending with small businesses. New duties will require contracting authorities to have regard to SME participation. Public sector buyers will have to look at how they can remove bureaucratic barriers and level the playing field for smaller businesses. Commercial frameworks will be made more flexible, with the new concept of an open framework, which will allow for longer-term frameworks that are reopened at set points, so that small and emergent businesses are not shut out for long periods. These measures build on existing policy, which allows procurers to reserve competitions for contracts below the thresholds for SMEs and social enterprises based in the UK, taking full advantage of the new freedoms following our exit from the EU.
We are determined to improve the prompt payment of small businesses in our supply chains. As I have mentioned, 30-day payment terms will apply contractually throughout the public sector supply chains and be implied into the contract, even when not specifically set out. The Bill provides for new improved procedures for the award of public contracts, supported by greater flexibility. Buyers will be able to design procurement processes that are fit for purpose and will create more opportunities to negotiate with suppliers so that the public sector can work in partnership with the private.
We will also take tougher action on underperforming suppliers.
Tributes to Her Late Majesty the Queen
Bill Esterson Excerpts(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Like so many people, I have only known a world in which Queen Elizabeth II was our Queen. The wonderful tributes we have heard often include reference to the amazing longevity of her reign, and I was reminded of this when I looked at the dates of her many visits to Sefton. When the Queen first visited Bootle, Crosby and Southport in the early 1950s, they were all in the county of Lancashire. They became part of the borough of Sefton only some 20 years later with local government reorganisation, which is a story familiar to many people across the country.
The Queen also visited Bootle in 1962 and as part of her silver jubilee tour in 1977. She went to the Altcar training camp in my constituency in 1985, and she went to Southport again on the same visit. Aintree racecourse is in my Sefton Central constituency and is, of course, home to the world’s most famous horserace. Given the Queen’s love of horses, it is perhaps no surprise that she first attended the grand national in 1956, and it is fitting that Red Rum saved his record third win in the grand national for 1977 and the Queen’s silver jubilee.
People across Sefton have fond memories of the Queen’s visits, and none more so than in 1993 when she joined the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the battle of the Atlantic at Bootle town hall. The links to the armed forces and to the merchant navy, which she recognised through her visits to Sefton, have provided service personnel and civilians with fond memories and demonstrated her gratitude for their service to our nation.
The messages of condolence from my constituents have displayed warmth and gratitude to the Queen. Memories of her will be treasured for years to come. Queen Elizabeth II did her duty for my constituents and deserves our heartfelt thanks for her service to our nation. May she rest in peace. Long live the King.
Oral Answers to Questions
Bill Esterson Excerpts(2 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend. This is one of those issues that the whole House is coming to realise requires extreme sensitivity, tact, love and care. We must recognise that when people want to make a transition in their lives, they should be treated with the maximum possible generosity and respect. We have systems in this country that allow that and have done for a long time, and we should be very proud of that, but I want to say in addition that I think, when it comes to distinguishing between a man and a woman, the basic facts of biology remain overwhelmingly important.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Mr Speaker
Order. We need to use more moderate and temperate language in this Chamber.
Oral Answers to Questions
Bill Esterson Excerpts(2 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I think the whole House will want to echo my condolences to Dylan’s friends and family. My hon. Friend raises a very important and emotive issue. At the moment, defibrillators are bought through voluntary contributions and donated to charities that may be eligible for VAT relief, but I am very happy to meet her to discuss the matter further.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
It is absolutely vital, if we are to have a successful outcome in what we are trying to do collectively, united with Ukraine, that we demonstrate that this is not about the Russian people; this is about the Putin regime.
Oral Answers to Questions
Bill Esterson Excerpts(2 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Don’t get too excited. You should be going to Lancashire for food.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Minister for Brexit Opportunities and Government Efficiency (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
Her Majesty’s Government are reforming the procurement rules to make it simpler and quicker for suppliers, including small and medium-sized enterprises and social enterprises, to bid for public sector contracts. The reforms will entrench transparency for the full extent of a commercial transaction, and will make it easier for buyers to take account of previous poor performance by suppliers.
Bill Esterson
The Government need to get on and reform those rules somewhat more quickly, do they not? In answer to my written question about steel targets for HS2, the Government told me that they were unable to set targets for British steel procurement because of World Trade Organisation rules, but that is not true, is it? The US sets informal targets through the Buy American Act because the WTO allows it to do so. Where, then, is the Buy British-made Steel policy in Government contracts in this country, using the informal targets that are allowed by the WTO? Labour will make more, buy more and sell more in Britain; why will the Conservatives not do so as well?
Mr Rees-Mogg
One of the opportunities of Brexit is that we will be able to encourage people to buy more from SMEs, which tend to be UK-based rather than from overseas. Opening up procurement has the effect of ensuring that more British companies get contracts, and that is a good thing to be doing, but there is always a balance to be struck between ensuring that one buys cheaply and efficiently and supporting British companies. I believe that British companies can out-compete, and be as efficient as, anyone in the world, and that that is how procurement ought to operate.