Civil Service Impartiality

Brendan Clarke-Smith Excerpts

Monday 6th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)]

Regarding the timing of the approach, the Leader of the Opposition failed around 10 times this morning, on LBC, to answer the actual question. Listeners will be questioning whether “Mr Rules” missed the rules. I also note that today’s Daily Telegraph contains a piece from the constitutional expert Sir Vernon Bogdanor, who says:

“The issue is important, since, if the approach was made before publication, the hope of future employment might—even if only subconsciously—have influenced its content. So it would not be possible any longer to regard Sue Gray as an impartial investigator.”

Does the Minister agree that perceptions matter?

[Jeremy Quin]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I, too, read the article by Sir Vernon Bogdanor. He raised interesting questions. It is why we are taking this issue so seriously. It is why we are exploring and want to get to the facts.

Oral Answers to Questions

Brendan Clarke-Smith Excerpts

Thursday 27th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)]

5. What steps he is taking to support island communities.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Brendan Clarke-Smith)]

Island communities are important to the United Kingdom, which is why the previous Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), chaired the inaugural Islands Forum meeting in Orkney last month. This forum brought together council leaders, chief executives and other island representatives from across the UK to share challenges and best practice on net zero. The forum will continue to meet to work together on shared opportunities and challenges in other areas, and I look forward to seeing the real difference it will make.

[Steve Double]

Cornwall is not quite an island, but if the River Tamar was a couple of miles longer it would be, and many a proud Cornishman has considered taking their shovel and finishing the job. But being a remote peninsula, we bear many of the hallmarks of island communities. That has shaped our proud, independent identity and culture but also created challenges in our economy and in delivery of public services. What consideration is given to Cornwall’s unique geography when considering funding public services and in levelling up the Duchy?

[Brendan Clarke-Smith]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and declare a bit of an interest in having a grandmother from Devon. Cornwall’s geographical position at the far end of the south-west peninsula is well known, and the challenges are well understood by the Government. The Government have committed £99 million across four Cornish towns through the future high streets fund and stronger towns funding, which will be invested in a range of projects to create community hubs, green transport, affordable housing and commercial flexible workspaces. We have also allocated to Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly £132 million from the UK shared prosperity fund so that Cornwall can decide what to invest in locally in order to best target the funding. We are also negotiating a historic devolution deal with Cornwall Council, recognising the distinctive characteristics of Cornwall, and empowering strong local leadership by taking a county deal approach to devolution.

[Virginia Crosbie]

Does my hon. Friend agree that island communities have unique characteristics that are best represented by having a dedicated Member of Parliament, which is why Ynys Môn has been granted special protected status in this Government’s recent boundary changes? Ynys Môn has been deprioritised under the Welsh Labour Government’s plans to increase the size of the Senedd from 60 to 96 Members and Ynys Môn will no longer have an MS with specific responsibility for it.

[Brendan Clarke-Smith]

I agree with and understand what my hon. Friend is saying. She has worked hard to ensure that Ynys Môn is given protected status by the UK Government, and I understand her concerns about the island and that it must not be deprioritised. I understand her point about MSs as well. My Conservative colleagues have done a brilliant job, despite the Welsh Labour Government, which is propped up by Plaid, and I thank her for her hard work.

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

Last Thursday the main telecommunications cable between Shetland and the mainland was damaged, leaving most of my constituents in Shetland with no access even to landline or broadband services. It was really fortunate that we were able to get services restored much better and more quickly than we expected, but it is surely apparent that the system does not have the necessary resilience. Will the Minister bring together the different stakeholders—the companies involved, the local authorities, the Scottish Government and UK Government Departments —and see what can be done as soon as possible to ensure that any repetition of what happened does not leave us stranded in the way that we were?

[Brendan Clarke-Smith]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question, and I am glad that the situation has been resolved. As I said in relation to the Islands Forum, the Government are committed to ensuring that island communities are fully represented. I am sure that we will be more than happy to continue with the meetings, and I am certainly happy to meet any stakeholders to discuss how we can improve the situation and continue to work together.

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

2. What discussions he has had with representatives from the devolved Administrations on recent changes in Government responsibility for the Union and inter- governmental relations.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

4. What discussions he has had with representatives from the devolved Administrations on recent changes in Government responsibility for the Union and intergovernmental relations.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Brendan Clarke-Smith)]

The Union is at the heart of the Government’s work, from securing UK-wide growth to establishing freeports and supporting the Homes for Ukraine scheme. Central to that is working closely with colleagues in the devolved Governments. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities will be continuing that work in his new role.

[Patricia Gibson]

The previous Prime Minister, in her short tenure, managed to keep only one pledge: to ignore the Leaders of the devolved nations. The new Prime Minister has said that he wants to lead the most active UK-wide Government for decades, and also to respect devolved Governments. Will the Minister explain how this Government can claim to be respectful when the Prime Minister has pledged to circumvent Holyrood and undermine the devolution settlement even more than his predecessors?

[Brendan Clarke-Smith]

I remind the hon. Lady that the previous Prime Minister did meet with First Ministers at events commemorating the Queen. We have also heard that the new Prime Minister has already spoken to the devolved leaders of Wales and Scotland and has made a firm commitment to work with our devolved Governments and to strengthen our precious Union. I am sure that he will continue to do that and, in doing so, will certainly have the support of Conservative Members.

[Kirsten Oswald]

The Prime Minister believes that he is delivering on the mandate that his party won, with a minority of votes and a lower percentage than that won by the SNP in both recent elections as the source of his legitimacy. Does the Minister agree that, as the Prime Minister was not elected, not even by his own party members, the cornerstone of renewed intergovernmental relations must be respect for the mandates won by the actually elected First Ministers of devolved Governments?

[Brendan Clarke-Smith]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. As the Prime Minister made clear, we will continue to work with devolved Governments. This Government have a mandate from 2019. We also respect the mandates of the devolved Governments, which we will continue to do, including the mandate in Scotland from the independence referendum to remain part of this precious Union.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I welcome the new team of Ministers to their positions today. I am not alone in being worried about the effect of this Government chaos on the Union, specifically on what they will do in terms of Union activity. The Union has been treated as a departmental tennis ball. It has gone to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, then to the Cabinet Office, and then back to the Department for Levelling Up, and now, we hear, it is potentially staying there. Does that really suggest priority for the Union? The former Prime Minister did not call the First Ministers of Scotland and Wales during the entire time that she was in office. That says a lot. Will the Minister please explain to the people of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland why this Tory Government treat our Union as a departmental tennis ball, instead of, as Labour would do, defending and building on our strong Union, which is a priority for everyone across our country?

[Brendan Clarke-Smith]

I take the hon. Lady’s point but, of course, as we have said, the Prime Minister telephoned the leaders of the Scottish and Welsh devolved Governments on his very first night in office. If that does not show how much the Union is treated as a priority, I am not really sure what else can be done. On departmental work, it is very important that the Cabinet Office deals with the constitutional elements of that and to use its expertise to make sure that intergovernmental work is as effective as possible.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the SNP spokesperson.

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

I, too, welcome the new Secretary of State and his team to their place.

It has been well documented that not once in her 45 days in office did the former Prime Minister pick up the phone to our First Minister. Indeed, such was her antipathy towards the nations of the UK that one of her first actions was to farm out responsibility for the Union and intergovernmental affairs from No. 10 to the Cabinet Office. I am pleased that the new Prime Minister has talked about a good working relationship and that he has called Nicola Sturgeon. Does this mean that responsibility for the Union and intergovernmental affairs will now return to Downing Street, or will it stay with the Cabinet Office? If it does stay with the Cabinet Office, what does it intend to do with it?

[Brendan Clarke-Smith]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Prime Minister remains in charge of elements relating to the Union. More than 200 intergovernmental ministerial meetings took place between just January and September of this year, and the focus of those engagements was on issues including the Ukrainian conflict, delivering net zero, cost of living pressures, covid-19 recovery, freeports and myriad other matters. Transparency is key, and we will continue to publish quarterly and annual intergovernmental relations reports on gov.uk to give a snapshot of the activity and to allow the scrutiny that Members wish.

[Brendan O’Hara]

It seems that responsibility for the Union and the intergovernmental relationship has become a hot potato that is passed from Department to Department, because no one knows what it is or quite what to do with it. My suggestion to the new Secretary of State is that he uses his new responsibility to encourage the Prime Minister to respect the mandate the Scottish people gave last year, when they elected a pro-independence majority Government with a commitment to holding a referendum. Does he agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) said: that a Prime Minister who was rejected by his own party members but subsequently put into office, unelected, by the MPs on the Government Benches, denying the wishes of the Scottish people in a free and fair election, is an absolute disgrace?

[Brendan Clarke-Smith]

Talking of free and fair elections is to undermine the tremendous democracy we live in and to show a lack of appreciation of what we have. The Prime Minister has continually referred to the result of the 2019 general election and mentioned his commitment to the 2019 manifesto we were elected on. We respect the devolved Governments; as I have said the Prime Minister spoke to those devolved leaders on his very first day in office and he will continue to do so. However, if we are talking about mandates, there is still the mandate in Scotland from the independence referendum. We are very firm on that, and we will continue to support it and prioritise the Scottish people rather than playing politics and navel gazing at this point in time.

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

3. How many civil service jobs he plans to relocate from London to the south-west of England in the remainder of this Parliament.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Brendan Clarke-Smith)]

The Government are committed to relocating roles out of London and to increasing and spreading opportunity, providing an economic boost to cities and towns across the UK. We have already relocated more than 8,000 roles and will relocate 15,000 by 2025. Around 1,200 of those roles will be relocated to the south- west by 2025.

[Luke Pollard]

The south-west is a great place to invest, and the Land Registry and the Valuation Office Agency are already prospering in our city. Will the Minister look ahead not only at allocating existing civil service roles, but at those we will develop in the future? Plymouth is building out a world-leading capability in autonomy, which has the potential to create huge numbers of jobs if we can create a cluster of Government and private sector expertise in one place.

[Brendan Clarke-Smith]

We currently have around 43,570 civil servants working in the south-west and, when I checked this morning, around 755 jobs are being advertised there. I can certainly reassure the hon. Gentleman that Plymouth is well represented in the Cabinet Office now.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

It is always good to hear that the town of my birth is well represented in any Department. The Minister will be aware that moving civil service jobs into coastal communities, particularly into our town centres, can help to kick-start regeneration. What plans does he have to look at doing that in Torbay?

[Brendan Clarke-Smith]

Of course, my hon. Friend is right: this Government are committed to levelling up not just in the north of England, but across the whole country, ensuring that everybody has opportunity wherever they are. That is why we are ensuring that we create jobs and opportunity everywhere in the country, including in constituencies such as his.

[Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)]

7. What steps his Department is taking to support people affected by infected blood.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

11. What steps his Department is taking to strengthen the Union.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Brendan Clarke-Smith)]

This Government are committed to delivering for citizens across the UK, whether it is protecting households against rising energy prices or stimulating growth through the creation of freeports. When we act as one United Kingdom, we are safer, stronger and more prosperous, and we remain committed to working collaboratively with the devolved Governments on the collective challenges ahead.

[Giles Watling]

I thank my hon. Friend for his answer, and it is good to see my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the team on the Front Bench. I have been fortunate enough to work in all four corners of this great Union—and Cornwall; my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) is no longer in his place. We have fought shoulder to shoulder for freedom and democracy all over the world, not least at Waterloo and the landing beaches of Normandy. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be foolish to let this great and successful Union fall apart on a whim, with the aid of the likes of Mel Gibson? Should there not be a legislated timeframe—say, 25 years—before another referendum can be held?

[Brendan Clarke-Smith]

I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent and, as always, good-humoured point. People across Scotland want both their Governments to be working together and focusing their attention and resources on the issues that matter to them, not talking about yet another independence referendum.

[John Lamont]

I am delighted to see the Ministers in their places. Cross-border transport links are essential for strengthening the Union and connecting people across the United Kingdom. Yesterday I had a positive and productive meeting with the Ministers at the Scotland Office to see how we can push forward the extension of the Borders railway. Campaigners hope that the UK Government will soon give the green light to the next steps of the plan and consider extending the railway to Hawick, Newcastleton and on to Carlisle. Can the Minister confirm that the Government are committed to moving that project forward as soon as possible?

[Brendan Clarke-Smith]

I know that my hon. Friend has been a great champion on this issue. I can confirm that the Department for Transport has been working closely with Transport Scotland and the Borderlands Partnership on development of the evidence behind a possible extension of the Borderlands railway, following commitments made in the Borderlands inclusive growth deal. The DFT will continue to work closely with all parties and is considering the next steps.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (Ind)]

I wonder how the Minister thinks the Government’s repeated and increasingly blatant disregard for the Sewel convention helps to strengthen the Union.

[Brendan Clarke-Smith]

Again, I refer the hon. Member to my earlier answers. If he would like to meet me, I am more than happy to discuss the issue with him at greater length.

[Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)]

10. What steps his Department is taking to increase apprenticeship opportunities within the civil service.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

17. How many requests under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 have been denied by his Department citing an exemption under section 35(1)(a) of that Act in each of the last five years.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Brendan Clarke-Smith)]

Statistics for the requests made under each subsection of section 35 are not held by the Cabinet Office. However, to assist the House, I will share the number of FOI requests refused under the entirety of section 35 in each of the last five years. In 2021, 150 FOI requests were refused. In 2020, there were 142; in 2019, 67; in 2018, 81; and in 2017, 63. Each of those figures represents between just 4% and 6% of total FOI requests made in that year. FOI requests are considered on a case-by-case basis, with information released where it is not exempt.

[Tommy Sheppard]

It is obviously disappointing that the Department does not collect those statistics given that the paragraph in question specifically relates to Government policy. I do not expect an answer today, but perhaps the Minister can write to me on the number of instances when decisions were subject to challenge at either the first-tier tribunal or upper tribunal and how much the Department spent in legal costs defending each challenge.

[Brendan Clarke-Smith]

I thank the hon. Member for his question. I remind him that responses are handled in line with the legislation, which includes applying the relevant exemptions where applicable. Parliament has agreed that certain sensitive information should be protected from disclosure, including information relating to the formulation and development of Government policy. I am however happy to write to him and will try to provide him with as much information as possible.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (Ind)]

I wonder whether we might give Ministers a second chance and see whether one of them can explain what they understand the principles of the Sewel convention to be, and whether nowadays they are more easily observed in their breach than in their application.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Brendan Clarke-Smith)]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that, as I am sure he realises, we will not normally legislate on a matter that involves the Scottish Parliament or another devolved Administration without consulting the devolved institution and letting it pass a legislative consent motion. I am sure that will continue. If he has any issues with any particular case, he is welcome to come and speak to us about it.

[Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

The inquiry into food security by the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has identified a major problem, which is that British farmers who want to produce more food do not have good access to the right amounts of nitrogen fertiliser. As part of the Government’s resilience work, can Ministers look across Government at what more we can do to ensure access to the fertiliser that British farmers need to produce British food for British consumers?

Cabinet Office

Brendan Clarke-Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 25th October 2022 Ministerial Corrections

The following is an extract from the draft Public Sector Bodies (Websites and Mobile Applications) Accessibility (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2022 debate in the Fifth Delegated Legislation Committee.

[Brendan Clarke-Smith]

I am more than happy to write to the hon. Lady. My mother is a BSL signer, so once again, this is something I deeply care about. I expect that such work will be implemented as part of the accessibility process.

[Official Report, Fifth Delegated Legislation Committee, 19 October 2022, c. 8.]

Letter of correction from the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Brendan Clarke-Smith):

An error has been identified in my answer to the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood).

The correct response should have been:

[Brendan Clarke-Smith]

I am more than happy to write to the hon. Lady. My mother is a BSL signer, so once again, this is something I deeply care about. The current work includes monitoring of accessibility requirements for deaf people but BSL specifically is not monitored as part of the accessibility process.

Departure of Previous Home Secretary

Brendan Clarke-Smith Excerpts

Thursday 20th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary to make a statement on the departure of his predecessor.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Brendan Clarke-Smith)]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her question. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman) resigned yesterday, following a contravention of the ministerial code relating to a breach of Cabinet confidentiality and the rules relating to the security of Government business. The Prime Minister has made clear the importance of maintaining high standards in public life, and her expectation that Ministers should uphold those standards, as set out in the ministerial code. All Ministers are personally responsible for deciding how to act and conduct themselves in the light of the code, and for justifying their actions and conduct to Parliament and the public. However, Ministers remain in office only so long as they retain the confidence of the Prime Minister. She is the ultimate judge of the standards of behaviour expected of a Minister, and the appropriate consequences of a breach of those standards. My right hon. and learned Friend has explained her decision to resign, and to be clear, the information that was circulated was subject to Cabinet confidentiality and under live discussion within the Government. In the light of that, it would not be appropriate to discuss the specifics of the matter further in the House, but the Prime Minister is clear that the security of Government business is paramount, as is Cabinet responsibility.

The Prime Minister paid tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend’s service as Home Secretary, noting that her time in office was marked by a

“steadfast commitment to keeping the British people safe”

and overseeing the

“largest ever ceremonial policing operation, when thousands of officers were deployed from forces across the United Kingdom to ensure the safety of the royal family and all those who gathered in mourning for Her Late Majesty The Queen.”

The Prime Minister, having accepted my right hon. and learned Friend’s resignation, acted decisively to appoint my right hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps) as Home Secretary yesterday afternoon. I hold the new Home Secretary in the highest regard and note that he is already getting on with the job, keeping the people of the country safe.

[Yvette Cooper]

I notice that the Home Secretary is not in his place this morning, unless the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Brendan Clarke-Smith), has been appointed Home Secretary in the last few hours. To be honest, nothing would surprise us at the moment, because this is total chaos. We have a third Home Secretary in seven weeks. The Cabinet was appointed only six weeks ago, but the Home Secretary was sacked, the Chancellor was sacked and the Chief Whip was sacked and then unsacked. We then had the unedifying scenes last night of Conservative MPs fighting like rats in a sack. This is a disgrace.

The former Home Secretary circulated a letter, and that seems to contradict what the Minister said. She said that the document was

“a draft Written Ministerial Statement…due for publication imminently”

that had already been briefed to MPs. Is that not true? Will he explain the answer to that? At what time did the former Home Secretary inform the Cabinet Secretary of the breach? Has a check been made of whether she sent other documents through personal emails, putting security at risk? Was there a 90-minute row about policy between the Prime Minister and the former Home Secretary? Given the huge disagreements we have seen in the last few weeks between the Prime Minister and the former Home Secretary on drugs policy, Rwanda, the India trade deal, seasonal agriculture, small boats—and with a bit of tofu thrown in over the lettuce for good measure—is anything about home affairs agreed on in the Cabinet?

What we know is that the former Home Secretary has been running her ongoing leadership campaign while the current one is too busy to come to the House because he is doing his spreadsheets on the numbers for whoever he is backing to come next. But who is taking decisions on our national security? It is not the Prime Minister, nor the past or current Home Secretaries. Borders, security and policing are too important for that instability, just as people’s livelihoods are too important for the economic instability that the Conservative party has created. It is not fair on people. To quote the former Home Secretary, this is indeed a total “coalition of chaos”. Why should the country have to put up with this for a single extra day?

[Brendan Clarke-Smith]

I am sure that the right hon. Member is aware that breaches of the ministerial code are a matter for the Cabinet Office, not the Home Office, and that is why I, not the Home Secretary, am here to answer the urgent question. The Prime Minister took advice from the Cabinet Secretary, as we saw from her letter, and she is clear that it is important that the ministerial code is upheld and Cabinet responsibility is respected. The Prime Minister expects Ministers to uphold the highest standards. We have seen her act consistently in that regard.

These were breaches of the code. The Prime Minister expects her Ministers to uphold the ministerial code, as the public also rightly expect, and she took the requisite advice from the Cabinet Secretary before taking the decision.

I am mindful that it is not usual policy to comment in detail on such matters, but, if some background would be helpful—I appreciate that much of this is already in the public domain—the documents in question contained draft Government policy, which remained subject to Cabinet Committee agreement. Having such documents on a personal email account and sharing them outside of Government constituted clear breaches of the code—under sections 2.14 and 2.3, if that is helpful to look at. The Prime Minister is clear that the security of Government business is paramount, as is Cabinet responsibility, and Ministers must be held to the highest standards.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Can the Minister assure us that the resignation was entirely due to a technical breach of the rules and that there was no policy disagreement between the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary? Many of us had great confidence in the former Home Secretary’s determination to ensure that we meet our manifesto commitments and that we should not replace mass migration from Europe with mass migration from the rest of the world. Can the Minister assure us that the policy remains exactly the same as it was under the previous Home Secretary and that we will stop mass migration? [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We cannot have conversations between Back Benchers and officials in the Box. [Interruption.] I know but, please, it is very distracting. Can we just make sure that it does not happen?

[Brendan Clarke-Smith]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. I can reassure him that this Government stand firm in tackling illegal immigration. Again, this is not my policy area, but I am sure the new Home Secretary will highlight that. I also reassure my right hon. Friend that he will have seen the resignation letter from the former Home Secretary where she outlines her reasons and that this was for a breach of the ministerial code, which is why she took the decision to resign.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson, Anne McLaughlin.

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)]

Let us be clear: the idea that this Conservative Government are suddenly avid followers of the ministerial code is for the birds. What was the real reason for the Home Secretary’s abrupt departure? Was it the case that she refused to implement immigration policies that were aimed at hitting high growth targets due to her dogmatic views? Speaking of dogmatic views, she and her predecessor, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), both supported the dangerous and immoral Rwanda policy, flying in the face of their own officials’ advice about the human rights implications. Will the Minister confirm that the old Home Secretary’s departure marks the end of that abhorrent policy? Will it be consigned to the scrap heap where it belongs? I will just end by quoting Colin Yeo, a prominent immigration lawyer noted for his comprehensive analysis of home affairs matters. Today, he posted an assessment called “Braverman’s legacy as Home Secretary”. It simply says:

“Suella Braverman was Home Secretary for 43 days.”

Does the Minister have anything to add to that?

[Brendan Clarke-Smith]

I will not pre-empt Government policy. Work on looking at immigration as part of the growth plan is ongoing, but it would not be right for me to speculate on private discussions. That is a matter for decision by the Cabinet. We are here to discuss breaches of the ministerial code and the reasons for the Home Secretary’s resignation.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Home Affairs Committee member, Lee Anderson.

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), makes a really good point: my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Brendan Clarke-Smith) would make an excellent Home Secretary. [Laughter.] But that is another conversation. I am sad to see the previous Home Secretary leave. We had a conversation last week about small boats, the European Court of Human Rights and the excellent Rwanda scheme. But I am not convinced, so please convince me Minister, that the Cabinet, the Government and No. 10 were totally behind the previous Home Secretary.

[Brendan Clarke-Smith]

I thank my hon. Friend, who is ever the champion of secure borders and will no doubt continue to push that case. The Government have shown that we are committed to tackling illegal immigration and the criminal acts going on in the channel. Again, while I would not want to pre-empt the policies of the new Home Secretary, I am sure that when he next comes to the House, he will be able to give my hon. Friend the assurance he seeks.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

No Home Secretary, no Chief Whip, no Deputy Chief Whip—this truly is a hokey-cokey Cabinet, isn’t it? In and out! What I want to ask the Minister directly is this: there is a world of difference between security and embarrassment for the Government, so can he tell us the security classification of the documents he is referring to? And can he tell us whether any other Ministers are using personal email accounts to conduct Government business?

[Brendan Clarke-Smith]

That is not information I am privy to and nor should it necessarily be in the public domain. It has been made very clear, from the statement at the start, that we are dealing with sensitive Government matters. It is important that sensitive Government documents are kept sensitive, and that is the reason the Home Secretary tendered her resignation. She recognises that the ministerial code was breached and that is why, as outlined in her letter, she resigned.

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

For the avoidance of doubt, will the Minister outline the Government’s current policy on immigration, and will he tell the House whether it is under review at the moment?

[Brendan Clarke-Smith]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and I refer him to the previous answers given. Again, it is not for me to discuss policy today as much as it is to discuss the reasons for the resignation of the Home Secretary. However, I am sure that the new Home Secretary will come to the House at a future date to discuss that in line with the growth plan and our commitments to tackle immigration.

[Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)]

The fact that someone who defended Dominic Cummings and expressed her intent to break international law ever became our Home Secretary shows how broken the Government are under the Tories, but having a new Home Secretary does not solve the problem. This Government are gridlocked, endlessly U-turning and completely failing the public. Is it not clear that it is only through a general election that we can again bring stability and security to our country?

[Brendan Clarke-Smith]

Again, I remind the hon. Lady that we do not live in a presidential system and, of course, that it is up to the Government to command the confidence of the House, which is the case. It has been made very clear that we will not be having a general election, but that is not the business for the House this morning. We are here to discuss the resignation of the Home Secretary, and I think we should stick to that, Mr Speaker, rather than trying to diverge into other areas.

[Mr Speaker]

I think I will decide that, though.

[Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)]

My constituents were informed yesterday that 200 economic migrants will be accommodated in a hotel in Ipswich town centre, at great cost to the taxpayer, putting pressure on local public services and also putting local jobs at risk. Will the Minister confirm to me that the new Home Secretary will prioritise the unsustainable practice of accommodating illegal immigrants in hotels and throw support behind things like the Rwanda scheme, which the Labour party opposes? That is potentially the only way that we can nip this problem in the bud.

[Brendan Clarke-Smith]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. In terms of reassurance, we have seen the Prime Minister acting swiftly to get a new Home Secretary in place yesterday afternoon. That is because the Government are committed to pushing ahead with our agenda and important issues that need attention, such as those that my hon. Friend highlighted. That is why it is so important that we have that stability and why the Prime Minister took the action that she did.

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

It is surely obvious that the Home Secretary resigned because it is now understood in Government that their immigration policy is a major block to economic growth. If that is the case, I welcome the change and the new Home Secretary, as we will if he ever graces the Chamber with his presence. When the Minister reports back to the Home Office, will he remind the Home Secretary that, when looking at immigration policy in relation to economic growth, we need urgent change in the law on visas for non-European economic area nationals seeking to work in our fishing industry?

[Brendan Clarke-Smith]

Once again, I think it has been made clear that we should not respond to speculation. Private discussions are exactly that and we have come here today to deal with the facts. The facts are that the Home Secretary tendered her resignation for a breach of the ministerial code and that policy issues are something for another time.

[Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)]

I was very disappointed to see the previous Home Secretary leave her role. She is a tremendous loss to those of us who hope that one day—just one day—this Government might finally get a grip on the small boats crisis. It would be a huge mistake if, upon her departure, the Government were to soften their tough line on preventing illegal immigrants entering this country. Will the Minister confirm that the Government’s policy remains unchanged?

[Brendan Clarke-Smith]

Although I may have already said that I cannot speak on behalf of other Ministers, I think my hon. Friend will have seen the Prime Minister’s letter to the Home Secretary in which she was thanked for her work. As well as the huge policing operation for Her late Majesty, there is the other work that she has been doing, such as clamping down on illegal immigration and keeping the British people safe, and I am sure that that work will continue.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

It has been widely reported that a member of the Cabinet was involved in a fracas during the vote last night. Was there a breach of the ministerial code? Will it be investigated?

[Brendan Clarke-Smith]

If the hon. Gentleman believes that such a breach has occurred, there is a set process for referring it, but I do not think that we should be commenting on speculation. As we saw in the press this morning, there are many stories about the Lobby last night. I was in the Lobby and certainly did not see what I believe other people have been saying they saw. Rather than commenting on speculation, I think we should stick to facts—and the facts are why we are here today.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

There seem to be as many theories about the real reason for the departure of the former Home Secretary as there are stories about what on earth went on—we all saw it—in the fiasco over which the Government presided last night. Can we have a bit more clarity about what has really gone on and what exactly is happening?

I have noticed that the Minister is being somewhat selective in whose questions about immigration he answers. I think it is quite important that he gives us some clarity, here and now, on whether he is seriously defending the abhorrent policies of the former Home Secretary.

[Brendan Clarke-Smith]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question, but—once again—we are not here today to discuss specific policies, we are not here to discuss gossip, we are not here to discuss rumours and we are not here to discuss what people think did or did not go on yesterday.

This is a completely different issue: we are here to discuss the resignation of the Home Secretary for a breach of the ministerial code. The Prime Minister has been very clear that she expects the highest standards in the Government and that all Ministers are expected to adhere to the ministerial code. When they have not done so—when they have breached it—they are expected to resign. That is what the former Home Secretary has done, as she outlined in her letter.

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

The Minister will have heard right hon. and hon. Members talking about the former Home Secretary’s comments about seeing refugees fly away. For a Member to talk in that way about people who are seeking refuge and fleeing war and persecution is deeply beneath this House. It is beneath the standards that we should have. The current Chancellor, who as we all know is probably the Prime Minister, has said that he wants to see a more compassionate conservatism. Will the new Home Secretary be outlining that compassion in dealing with and talking about people seeking asylum and refuge in our country?

[Brendan Clarke-Smith]

Although I cannot discuss policy, I will that this Government have shown compassion. I point not just to the aid that we give abroad, but to the Homes for Ukraine scheme and to what we did before that with Syria and with Afghanistan. This country has a proud history of welcoming refugees. That will continue. The Government have been committed to it and will continue to be committed to it. I am certainly committed to it.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Appointing a Home Secretary who lasted for 43 days and a Chancellor who lasted for 38 is unprecedented and farcical. What does it say about the Prime Minister’s judgment and fitness for office? She no longer has any support anywhere in this House. Should she not follow her former colleagues to the Back Benches, pausing only to ask for a Dissolution of Parliament?

[Brendan Clarke-Smith]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that appointments are a matter for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has outlined what she expects from the conduct of Ministers, and when she has changed her appointments she has done so swiftly. She has been very clear that she expects us to work together towards our growth plan to deliver for the people of this country. That is why she has taken the actions she has taken.

[Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)]

The former Home Secretary got her jotters because she was on manoeuvres. The Cabinet at large is on manoeuvres to find out who will replace the Prime Minister, but the de facto Prime Minister—the Chancellor—did not want anybody else’s manoeuvres competing with his own. Is that not the truth? It is nothing to do with a breach of the code.

[Brendan Clarke-Smith]

The proof is in the resignation letter of the former Home Secretary. She herself outlined the reasons why she resigned from her position. She has been very clear about the ministerial code and about which areas of it she has breached. As we have said, other matters are to be treated separately. Once again, we are here today to discuss why the former Home Secretary resigned; we are not here to discuss other matters that involve internal party politics.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

The Minister may not want to discuss immigration policy today, but I hope he will share my deep concern at the written answer that I received from the Home Office on Tuesday, which revealed that nearly 900 asylum-seeking children under 16 had been accommodated in hotels. According to a report published this week by the chief inspector of borders and immigration, some of the hotel staff do not even have Disclosure and Barring Service clearance. Will the Minister go back to the Home Office immediately after this session and urge it to take action to get those children out of those hotels and into a place of safety?

[Brendan Clarke-Smith]

I am happy to pass that question on to those at the Home Office so that they can provide the hon. Lady with the information she seeks. Of course, we remain committed to safeguarding children, whether they are in this country or those that this country has received.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

The Minister has referred to the former Home Secretary’s letter of resignation. In that letter, she said:

“the document was a draft Written Ministerial Statement...due for publication imminently. Much of it had already been briefed to MPs.”

Can the Minister confirm that that is the case? I suspect that it is the case, and if so, we all know full well what the real reason for her resignation was, do we not?

[Brendan Clarke-Smith]

I think I covered this earlier, but I am happy to repeat what I said for the hon. Gentleman’s benefit. Having this information in a personal email account and then sharing it outside Government does constitute a clear breach of the code. Members may wish to look at sections 2.14 and 2.3 if that would be helpful, but the Prime Minister has been clear that the security of Government business is paramount. That is why we hold Ministers to the highest standards, and that is why the Home Secretary tendered her resignation.

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

This is a mess. I appreciate that the Minister is having a really bad time having to defend it, but may I ask whether he has asked other Cabinet Members whether they have shared sensitive documents in their personal emails? Have they been asked that question? Has this been extended to other platforms such as WhatsApp, Telegram or Signal? Will there be a full check of the former Home Secretary’s phone to ensure that not just personal email but other social networks and communication apps may have been used?

At the moment, the Minister is not reassuring the House or the public that the safety of our sensitive national security is being properly looked at by the Government. Can he give us that reassurance, and if he does not know the facts, will he come back to the House with a full disclosure of what apps were used, what documents were shared, and whether every single member of the Government has been checked?

[Brendan Clarke-Smith]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important for documents to be kept secure. That is why such material is kept separate from personal emails and so on. This is something that Ministers—including me, as a new Minister—are always reminded of: we are given a big thick rulebook that we have to read.

We have made it clear that when there are breaches, there is a method for reporting them. We will of course take advice from the Cabinet Secretary regarding that, and I am sure that if there are further breaches, Members will be made aware of them in future.

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

The dogs in the street can see the chaos at the heart of this Government, and the departure of the former Home Secretary—the full truth of which we still do not know, even after what has been said today—is not even the latest example of that chaos. As we face huge economic challenges and a “cost of Tory” crisis, we have probably not needed stronger and more decisive leadership this much since world war two. Does the Minister think that the UK has the strong and decisive leadership that it needs?

[Brendan Clarke-Smith]

I absolutely do have that strong and decisive leadership, and it was strong and decisive leadership that received the resignation of the former Home Secretary and then appointed another Home Secretary on the same afternoon.

As the Prime Minister has made very clear, she wants to move forward. She wants to move quickly to deliver for the people of this country. That is why appointments have been made, and given the breadth of the talent on the Back Benches that we currently have, there is a wide pool of talent from which to choose. I am glad that we are in that position, rather than having to send our Front Benchers on training courses as the Opposition have had to do recently.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (Ind)]

Increased immigration would tackle labour shortages and increase the tax take and ending the hostile environment would vastly improve Government efficiency. Given that growing the economy and cutting Government spending are supposed to be Government priorities, when will we hear from the new Home Secretary about how Home Office policy is going to align with the Prime Minister’s stated aims?

[Brendan Clarke-Smith]

If increased immigration is the SNP’s policy, that is for them. In our policies, we have been clear that we want to attract the brightest and best talent to this country while making sure that we have a firm but fair immigration system. Today is not a day for policy, but I am pleased that we have replaced the Home Secretary swiftly and that we are able to continue the good work that we are currently doing in these areas.

Draft Public Sector Bodies (Websites and Mobile Applications) Accessibility (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2022

Brendan Clarke-Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2022 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Brendan Clarke-Smith)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Public Sector Bodies (Websites and Mobile Applications) Accessibility (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2022.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins.

The purpose of the regulations, which were laid before the House on 18 July, is technical. They do not introduce any new policy, rather the main purpose is to update the Public Sector Bodies (Websites and Mobile Applications) (No.2) Accessibility Regulations 2018, so that they can continue to operate, given that the UK has left the European Union. The amendments do not add any burdens to the UK’s public sector, nor do they reduce any of the UK’s standards and support for disabled people.

The 2018 regulations were transposed from EU Directive 2016/2102 which requires public sector bodies to make their websites and mobile applications accessible, unless it would impose a disproportionate burden on the public sector body to do so.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

According to the Royal National Institute of Blind People there are 340,000 people registered blind or partially sighted in the UK, and there are more than 2 million people living with sight loss. The statutory instrument is particularly important to them. I know from blind and partially sighted people that I have spoken to just how important it is to them that they are able to access websites and other technologies, such as mobile apps, for a range of things including shopping, accessing services and communicating with friends and family.

It is important that the Government lead the way on this, so what steps does the Minister intend to take to encourage companies more widely to ensure that their websites are accessible to people with disabilities, including those who are blind and partially sighted?

[Brendan Clarke-Smith]

I share the hon. Lady’s passion for making sure that we can make things accessible. I have worked in my own constituency with organisations such as the RNIB towards that end. Existing regulations, such as those in the Equality Act 2010, aim to ensure accessibility. I will make sure that we not only enforce those regulations, but I want to see companies proactively implementing today’s proposed regulations without the Government having to get involved. From my perspective, I and, I am sure, my colleagues will continue to promote that work. The hon. Lady is absolutely right.

“Accessibility” refers to principles and techniques to follow when people design, build, maintain and update websites and apps in order to make them as easy as possible for people to use. That applies in particular to people with disabilities, and people who use assistive technology with their computers, tablets and mobile phones, such as a screen reader or screen magnification software. The regulations build on existing UK legislation and commitments such as the Equality Act 2010 in England, Scotland and Wales, and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 in Northern Ireland, which placed duties on service providers to make reasonable adjustments for persons with disabilities when providing services and exercising public functions.

The current regulations also place some obligations on the Minister for the Cabinet Office, including monitoring of the public sector to ensure the regulations are being met, and sending a report to the European Union every three years, detailing what has been found during that monitoring. Those obligations were harmonised, so that implementation was similar across EU member states and so that there could be comparison between countries. That harmonisation is no longer required, and the specified monitoring process has been inefficient to implement. The amendments move the monitoring process from being defined in a European Commission implementing decision to being set by the UK Government. The model accessibility statement that websites and mobile apps need to publish is also moved to be set by the UK Government. The first report was due to be sent to the EU in December 2021. Instead of this, the Minister for the Cabinet Office published a similar report on GOV.UK, and the proposed amendments alter the obligation allowing the same procedure to be followed in the future. That ensures that the monitoring, and the effectiveness of the regulations, are transparent to all.

The 2018 regulations used a European technical standard as the definition of the accessibility requirements placed on the public sector. That standard is controlled by the European Commission and is subject to its funding and timeframes. Practically, that standard mainly references an international standard called the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, created and published by the World Wide Web Consortium. The proposed amendments would move the technical standard to that international standard, which is far more well known and used by digital accessibility experts, and is also open for all to contribute to.

The proposed regulations are made under section 8 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which allows a Minister to make regulations to resolve any deficiencies in law that arise as a result of the UK’s departure from the European Union.

The technical standard, monitoring and reporting methodology and the model accessibility statement were set through European Commission implementing decisions. The UK no longer adopts new implementing Acts so changes to those Acts no longer take effect in the UK. The SI removes the links to the Commission’s implementing Acts and replaces them with UK-set implementations, as mentioned previously. Three European Commission implementing decisions will be revoked once the amendments are made.

I hope that colleagues will join me in supporting the draft regulations, and I commend them to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brendan Clarke-Smith]

I thank the Opposition spokesperson for her contribution. I recognised many of the issues she highlighted, because, as someone with dyspraxia, I had difficulties accessing things, certainly during my school examinations. It is something that has great personal meaning to me.

On the scope of the regulations, they are made under section 8 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, which allows deficiencies in regulations to be remedied now that we have left the EU. The UK has a strong commitment to supporting disabled people under the Equality Act and of course under the Disability Discrimination Act as well. The regulations only apply to the public sector, but the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport will explore whether similar regulations could be introduced for the private sector. That policy has currently paused pending the outcome of the appeal on the lawfulness of the National Disability Strategy. I agree with the hon. Lady that we must encourage others to be onboard, not just the public sector.

On the enforcement of accessibility statements, the need to publish those was a new burden on the public sector and some grace has been given to it to enable it to publish them. Our monitoring shows that around 90% of sites have published a statement, and we will consider further future enforcement. The hon. Lady asked whether that monitoring was sufficient, and I can tell her that more than 900 sites and apps have been monitored so far across the public sector by the monitoring team in the digital service. The proposed regulations will allow that monitoring to focus on the sites and services that disabled people use regularly, and to use new technology to target the least accessible public sector websites.

As for the findings so far, the Cabinet Office published a report in December 2021 detailing the findings from accessibility monitoring of public sector websites and apps. Although accessibility issues were identified on nearly all tested websites, after sending a report to the website owner and giving them some time to fix the issues, 59% had fixed them or had short-term timelines for when the websites would be fixed. The main issues identified were the lack of visible focus on screen, which affects keyboard users, low colour contrasts on webpages, which affects visually impaired users and technical website construction issues that affect users of assistive technology.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I welcome the Minister’s response on that point, and obviously it is good news that when public sector providers were told that their website did not meet accessibility standards, 59% of them corrected it either immediately or in a short time. What did his Department do about the 41% that did not respond in that manner?

[Brendan Clarke-Smith]

That is a fair question and is exactly why we are introducing the regulations, because they will enable us to take matters further. I mentioned National Disability Strategy and the appeal pending; I cannot give any further detail, but pending the result of that appeal, the strategy will also enable us to take matters further. The model accessibility statement is published on GOV.UK, and currently mirrors the EU version. We will look at improvements to make it more useful, and enforcement will play a part in that.

[Lilian Greenwood]

Given that arrangements have been in place for some time to improve accessibility, and the Minister has identified problems, what assessment has he made of the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s ability to enforce the regulations? Is it sufficiently resourced to do so? Often, we place the onus on individuals to make complaints, when surely we should be more proactive in ensuring that websites and mobile apps are accessible in the first place. People should not be required to jump through hoops to raise concerns, and only then do we enforce.

[Brendan Clarke-Smith]

I agree. We are being proactive by introducing the regulations, and formulating the strategy. We encourage the public and private sectors to get involved and not just wait to act on a complaint. The Government are actively pursuing the matter and identified cases have been passed to the equalities bodies for further compliance and enforcement work.

I am grateful to hon. Members for their contributions. The Government are committed to improve the everyday lives of disabled people, and access to public information and services is vital. The SI makes sure that the public sector remains accessible to all as it moves online.

[Lilian Greenwood]

May I ask the Minister again about the British Sign Language Act? Will the monitoring process properly capture what is being done to facilitate and promote the use of British sign language? If he is not able to answer me now, can he write to me?

[Brendan Clarke-Smith]

I am more than happy to write to the hon. Lady. My mother is a BSL signer, so once again, this is something I deeply care about. I expect that such work will be implemented as part of the accessibility process. I have already mentioned support for those who are blind or deaf, but of course everybody has a right to accessibility. We are committed to that. The EHRC also has set a strategic priority and will take action against public sector bodies that do not meet the regulations.

I commend the regulations to the Committee and I hope that colleagues will support them.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Digital Government (Disclosure of Information) (Amendment) Regulations 2022

Brendan Clarke-Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2022 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Brendan Clarke-Smith)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Digital Government (Disclosure of Information) (Amendment) Regulations 2022.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Fovargue. The purpose of the draft regulations is to allow information sharing between specified bodies for the specific purpose of identifying and targeting funded early learning and childcare for families with eligible two-year-olds in Scotland. They amend the Digital Government (Disclosure of Information) Regulations 2018.

The public service delivery power supports public bodies to improve or target the important public services which they provide. The power is designed to give public bodies the information needed to provide early intervention and vital support for those who need it or, where possible, to prevent the problems that reduce people’s life chances. In order to exercise the public service delivery power, the Government must set specific objectives for data sharing via regulations, and those objectives must meet specific criteria defined in primary legislation.

The draft regulations seek to establish a new objective for data sharing under the public service delivery power in the Digital Economy Act 2017 for identifying and targeting funded early learning and childcare for families with eligible two-year-olds in Scotland. The objective created through the draft regulations will enable data sharing from the Department for Work and Pensions and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to the Scottish Government, and the forwarding of that data to Scottish local councils. That will allow Scottish local councils access to the necessary information held by DWP and HMRC to enable them to identify households most in need, and then to directly contact those families to inform them of the support they are likely to be eligible for.

The territorial extent of the draft regulations is Great Britain, and their territorial application is England and Scotland. The draft regulations must be taken through the UK Parliament by the UK Government because information sharing under the proposed objective would involve disclosure and processing of data held by UK Departments: HMRC and DWP. The Scottish Parliament can only approve proposals for new objectives that solely involve specified Scottish bodies permitted to make use of the public service delivery power.

Legal gateways already exist in England and Wales to enable data sharing to support delivery of early learning and childcare. The draft regulations will bring Scotland parity of service provision with that already enjoyed by families in England and Wales. Data sharing is a vital and effective way of identifying individuals and households experiencing problems that reduce their life chances. Access to high-quality early learning and childcare is a key factor in determining life chances.

There are safeguards in place to protect personal data from misuse. The objective has already been subject to scrutiny by the Public Service Delivery Review Board, which oversees the use of the public service delivery power, as set out in the underpinning code of practice. The review board comprises specialists working in the UK Government and the devolved Administrations, as well as public representative bodies and civil society groups. Officials from the Information Commissioner’s Office also attend as observers.

The board is tasked with considering proposals for new objectives for data sharing under the public service delivery power and making recommendations to Ministers. The board’s recommendation to take forward the draft regulations was approved by the relevant Minister as they meet the criteria set out in section 35 of the 2017 Act for objectives under the public service delivery power, enabling the sharing of personal information to support the improvement or targeting of public services to individuals or households in order to improve their wellbeing.

Furthermore, the objective has been subject to public consultation. Responses to the statutory public consultation were decidedly positive, with up to 94% of respondents agreeing that the proposed data sharing would improve services and target them to eligible households, and 88% agreeing that data sharing would improve wellbeing for those households. Some 86% of respondents also agreed that the data sharing would deliver tangible benefits to households, including early-stage support to promote education, health and social equality. Importantly, 87% of respondents agreed that the personal data items to be shared, specifically including the customer name—that is, the parent or carer name—address and national insurance number, as well as the child or children indicator to confirm the existence of a child or children, are appropriate for early learning and childcare service delivery.

Parliamentarians have already approved the code of practice and the Digital Government (Disclosure of Information) Regulations 2018, which established public service delivery objectives. Sharing personal data will, understandably, tend to attract attention and scrutiny. However, the power, as with other data-sharing powers in part 5 of the Digital Economy Act 2017, must be exercised in compliance with the data protection legislation and UK GDPR.

There is an underpinning code of practice that sets out how the power must be operated, and this includes setting out how any data shared under this power must be processed lawfully, securely and proportionately, in line with data protection legislation. Anyone making use of any objective must have regard to the code. The code of practice also requires that information-sharing agreements are included in a public register of information-sharing activity under the powers.

I hope colleagues will join me in supporting the draft regulations. I commend them to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brendan Clarke-Smith]

I would like to address some of the points that have been made and to wish the hon. Member for Putney, who is unable to be with us today, a speedy recovery.

The hon. Member for Luton North made some sensible suggestions. First, on safeguards, we are aware of the risks regarding the misuse of people’s personal data. The data-sharing provisions in part 5 of the DEA include a number of robust safeguards. The most important, as we have mentioned, is compatibility with and strict adherence to the Data Protection Act 2018 and UK GDPR. The DEA also goes further. It includes a number of other safeguards, such as sanctions for unlawful disclosures, including custodial sentences in some cases. The public service delivery powers are permissive, which means that the authorities listed in schedule 4 can choose whether to use them or not, and that safeguarding prevents inappropriate data-sharing.

[Sarah Owen]

I appreciate the severity of those reprimands should data breaches take place, but could the Minister tell us how many people have actually received custodial sentences as a result of a data breach? We are talking about particularly young people’s data, so I want to ensure that the existing regulations are tight enough.

[Brendan Clarke-Smith]

I am happy to write to the hon. Member with the exact figures, so that there is a record of them. I share her concern; it is important that appropriate enforcement action is taken.

As new public service delivery objectives are created by regulations under the affirmative procedure, new objectives will be defined before data sharing can commence, and that will follow public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny.

The public service delivery powers have not yet commenced in Northern Ireland; the policy does not apply there at the moment. The objective relates only to Scotland; however, our respective officials have engaged on the possibility of having equivalent objectives for Northern Ireland. We recognise that that would be contingent on the commencement of devolved government in Northern Ireland.

With regard to statutory instruments, the UK Government are taking the objective forward at the request of the Scottish Government. The territorial extent of the regulations is the UK, but the regulations apply in England and Scotland only. The Government are required to consult the devolved Administrations, and formal consultation was carried out with them. Furthermore, there is ongoing liaison at official level to ensure that the views of Welsh and Northern Irish colleagues are fully accounted for. On the point that the hon. Member for Luton North made about SIs, I am more than happy to provide information on where we are on that.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen North is clearly passionate about making sure that we deliver the funding to those who are eligible; that is what this is all about. We already get the relevant information from Scotland; it is important that we reciprocate.

The objective will benefit Scottish families with eligible two-year-olds by increasing their access to funded early learning and childcare. If eligible families were to purchase the funded hours, it would cost them around £5,000 per eligible child per year. Another benefit for families is the narrowing of the poverty-related outcomes gap for children facing the most disadvantage. As the hon. Member for City of Chester said, that is very important. We want to make sure that we support families. I have a young family and have benefited from various Government schemes. I do not know how our working family would have managed without them, so I speak from first-hand experience. I fully take on board what he said. As for other benefits, the objective will provide parents with increased opportunities to be in work, training or study, and will improve family wellbeing.

I thank the Committee for taking the time to scrutinise the draft regulations, which will enable more effective use of data, so that we can better support the most vulnerable in society and deliver better outcomes for our citizens. I hope that colleagues will join me in supporting the regulations, which I commend to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Port of Dover: Border Controls

Brendan Clarke-Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2022 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Brendan Clarke-Smith)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ali, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke) for securing today’s debate. She has been a tremendous campaigner on this issue since her election, not just in her constituency but nationally. It is something that has certainly been raised in my constituency many times, and I am grateful for the contribution she continues to make on this matter.

I will respond to the helpful contributions that my hon. Friend has made in a moment, but before I do, I would like to underline the Government’s commitment to safe, secure and—of course—efficient borders. In April, the Government announced that the remaining import controls on EU goods will no longer be introduced this year, saving British businesses up to £1 billion in annual costs. The controls introduced in January 2021 on the highest risk imports of animals, animal products, plants and plant products will continue to apply in order to safeguard the UK’s biosecurity.

The Government further recognise the negative effect traffic build-up can have on the residents of Kent. My colleagues and I are committed to working with all the relevant stakeholders and the Kent Resilience Forum, which has the statutory responsibility for planning and holds operational decision-making powers in managing any disruption in Kent if and when it occurs.

Alongside my colleagues from other Departments and on the Back Benches, I am taking the issues that will be posed by the new entry-exit system seriously. This is an EU requirement being implemented by France, which is responsible for the systems, technology and processes. We have been working with French logistics operators and others to ensure the implementation of the entry-exit system minimises any impacts on border flows and traffic build-up. We are working closely with the operators of locations with juxtaposed controls, including the port of Dover, Eurotunnel and Eurostar to support them in their engagement with the French and with implementation plans. I am encouraged by recent developments on transition arrangements that have been proposed by the EU Commission; however, we need to see more progress on implementation and transition arrangements, and we will continue to actively raise this with our EU counterparts.

We recognise that the entry-exit scheme has the potential to impact on throughput at the port of Dover, and minimising that is a priority that we share with the port. We are already engaging with the French Government on this, and will meet them again at the start of November to look at the progress implementation plans and ways of mitigating negative impacts: the port of Dover will be involved in those discussions. The UK and French Governments share commitments to determine the infrastructure requirements, processes and procedures that take place on one another’s territory through the juxtaposed control arrangements. The entry-exit scheme is to become one of those processes, as part of the EU operating a secure border. We are fully aware that requiring all passengers to exit vehicles in order to register their biometric and biographic data would be hugely challenging, and we are exploring alternatives to this with the French Government—especially given the additional safety considerations around requiring passengers to mix with traffic flows.

While it is not the direct focus of the debate, it is worth noting that EES presents similar challenges, particularly in terms of disruption to passenger flows for Eurostar services both at St. Pancras International and its continental stations. Officials are equally engaging with Eurostar and French counterparts to agree plans for installing EES kiosks at St. Pancras, albeit there are major space constraints there too. As with the short straits, we are pressing for pragmatic solutions so we alleviate pressure at the border as far as possible. The Government recognise the strategic importance of the short straits for UK trade.

The Department for Transport works closely with the Kent Resilience Forum to manage disruption in Kent. The Kent Resilience Forum has extensive traffic management plans in place, including Operation Brock, to keep traffic moving. The Kent Resilience Forum, which is operationally independent from the Government, is responsible for managing traffic disruption. The Kent Resilience Forum has well-tested traffic management plans in place in their Operation Fennel plan, which includes the option to deploy Operation Brock on the M20, allowing portal-bound freight to be stored on the coast-bound carriageway while a contraflow enables both the coast and London-bound carriageway to remain open to passenger and local freight traffic.

The Kent Resilience Forum can manage a queue of up to 5,000 HGVs while keeping the M20 open; that figure rises to 8,450 HGVs with partial or full closure of sections of the coast-bound M20. The Government recognise the strategic importance of the short straits for UK trade, and my Department works closely with the Kent Resilience Forum to support it in managing disruption in Kent whenever it comes. Operational decisions on how best to manage this therefore sit with the Kent Resilience Forum, including the deployment of Operation Brock.

The disruption at the start of the summer holidays, in the busiest period for passenger travel so far this year at the port of Dover and the Eurotunnel, was caused by a combination of fewer than expected French border officials staffing the controls at Dover and a serious road traffic accident that caused the M20 to be closed for a prolonged period. Kent Resilience Forum and local partners worked tirelessly throughout to manage the worst of the disruption and cleared it within 48 hours.

On border controls, the Government announced in April that the remaining import controls on EU goods will no longer be introduced this year, saving British businesses up to £1 billion in annual costs. The controls introduced in January 2021 on the highest-risk imports of animals, animal products, plants and plant products will continue to apply to safeguard the UK’s biosecurity.

Having left the EU, we can now put in place a new global import regime that best suits the UK’s needs, and it is important that we get that right. We will design a global regime for importing goods that is safe, secure and efficient, and that will harness innovative new technologies to streamline processes and reduce frictions.

We also want to speed up our system and get closer to frictionless trade. Our live “ecosystem of trust” pilot tests how we can use supply chain data and physical assurance technology to give border agencies confidence about goods moving in and out of the country, enabling better targeted checks at the border. If the Government can confer more trust on traders, we can start giving them benefits in return, such as fewer admin burdens, less physical intervention and delay at the border, and other policy facilitations that make it quicker and easier to move goods.

The Government have been clear that, in consultation with industry, we will publish a target operating model in the autumn. That will set out our new regime of border import controls and will target the end of 2023 as the introduction date for our controls regime, which will deliver on our promise to create the world’s best border on our shores.

The target operating model will describe the user journey for the import and export of goods across the border, explaining what must be done, by whom, and when. For traders, it will explain what must be done upstream of the border before goods arrive at it, and what must happen at the border—including border control posts—and after goods have entered free circulation. For the border industry, it will explain how policy, processes, systems and infrastructure act together to deliver that user journey, and what is required of them to implement those.

The new approach will apply equally to goods from the EU and the rest of the world. It will be based on a proper assessment of risk, with a proportionate risk-based and technologically advanced approach to controls. That includes a single trade window, which will start to deliver from 2023 the creation of an ecosystem of trust between Government and industry, and other transformational products, as part of our 2025 border strategy.

Inland border facilities were introduced to deal with customs checks at the border post-Brexit, and are constantly under review to ensure they provide value for money. A new proposed site at Dover was part of that review and, after looking into the amount of cross-channel traffic and the necessary associated checks, a decision was made in June 2022 not to progress that site. The review showed that the existing facilities had enough capacity to deal with the flow of traffic and that, therefore, a new site was not necessary. The decision saw a taxpayer saving of around £120 million, which was the anticipated cost of developing and running the Dover inland border facilities for the intended duration, and allowed the funds to be utilised elsewhere.

That decision to not build the inland border facility, however, does not mean that that asset is not required by the Government. The Department for Transport is exploring alternative options for its development to ease pressure at the border, given the issues with disruption on the strategic road network in Kent and at the ports. The Department for Transport will continue to engage with my hon. Friend the Member for Dover, local leaders, businesses and residents to ensure that any development will also benefit the local economy and the community.

Alongside Dover inland border facilities, the Government are also considering our options concerning the future of Dover sanitary and phytosanitary border control post sites. Importantly, no decision has been made at this stage about the future of the site. I reassure my hon. Friend that the Government will continue to engage with local leaders, businesses and residents before one is made.

The Government are committed to investing in towns across the country and, in Dover, we have put our money where our mouth is. The future high streets fund is providing £3.2 million for Dover town centre and waterfront, and the UK shared prosperity fund is providing £1 million for Dover as part of the £7.5 million for constituencies across Kent. For Kent as a whole, the Government are also providing £6.8 million for 10 projects as part of the community renewal fund.

Small boat crossings are dangerous and unnecessary, and scores of people have been killed attempting to cross the channel in unseaworthy vessels. Every crossing attempt is a potential tragedy. The UK remains committed to continuing to address illegal migration via France through our enduring relationship. We continue to engage with the French at all levels, political and operational, and are supporting the provision of technology and the sharing of intelligence to meet our strategic aims.

The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 includes significant new measures to increase the fairness of our system, so that we can better protect and support those in need of asylum, deter illegal entry into the UK and remove more easily from the UK those with no right to be here. Since the passage of the Act, the number arriving on small boats has passed 33,000, far exceeding the 2021 total in just nine months. We cannot continue, year on year, with the inexorable rise in the number of illegal arrivals, which adds to the pressures on our public services.

We will break the business model of the people smugglers and deter those seeking to enter the UK illegally only by putting in place a system in which it is clear to all that anyone arriving in this country illegally will not have their asylum claim considered here, and that they will instead be removed to Rwanda, or another safe country, to have their claim processed. We will be able to solve this issue only when those facilitating and attempting hazardous and potentially fatal journeys realise that their claims will not be processed. Following the decommissioning of the temporary structures at the Tug Haven site at the start of 2021, reception and processing facilities have been significantly improved, with the opening of the new premises in Dover and Manston.

Active consideration is being given to investment in the road network in Kent as part of the third road investment strategy. We are continuing to work closely with my hon. Friend and local stakeholders, who are making a strong case to improve the A2. Final decisions on the schemes will be taken in the investment plan for the road investment strategy, which is set for 2024.

In their recent joint statement, the Prime Minister and President Macron recognised the need to strengthen our co-operation, with a view to concluding some ambitious packages this autumn. We will update the House on that in due course.

The Nationality and Borders Act is a long-term solution to the long-term problems that have beset the asylum system over decades. It has three central objectives: to make the system fairer and more effective, so that we can better protect and support those in genuine need; to deter illegal entry, breaking the business model of evil criminal trafficking; and to make it easier to remove those with no right to be here. The Government remain committed to delivering the partnership between the UK and Rwanda, so that we can break the business model of the people smugglers.

The Government remain committed to all their international obligations, including the refugee convention. As we review the Bill of Rights Bill, we remain a committed party to the European convention on human rights. UK policy on migration should not be derailed by the abuse of our modern slavery laws, the Human Rights Act 1998 or orders of the Strasbourg Court. Although we will work within the bounds of international law, we cannot allow the abuse of our system to continue.

In conclusion, it is a pleasure to close the debate on behalf of the Government. I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate, and for all the hard work she has done, and continues to do, on the issue. To be truly world leading, we need to look beyond improvements to the border that other countries have already implemented, to a radical reimagining of how Government and industry can work together to enable secure trade. That will ultimately enhance the reputation that Kent and the UK have for facilitating business and encouraging investment.

Question put and agreed to.

Early General Election

Brendan Clarke-Smith Excerpts

Monday 17th October 2022 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Brendan Clarke-Smith)]

As always, it is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) for bringing this debate before us.

The nation and the world face the challenges not just of Vladimir Putin’s war in Ukraine, but of recovering from the covid-19 pandemic. Putin’s war has caused a global economic crisis, with interest rates rising around the world. I am sure that nobody in this country would like a general election more than Vladimir Putin.

Families and businesses are feeling the impact across the country, from the cost of their supermarket shop to their energy bills, as hon. Members have mentioned. In these tough times, therefore, the Government are taking decisive action to get Britain moving.

[Owen Thompson]

I am sorry to intervene so early, but will the Minister tell us how Vladimir Putin caused mortgage rates to shoot up to such an extent?

[Brendan Clarke-Smith]

We need to look at interest rates around the world, the strength of the US dollar and inflation rates around Europe. Curbing inflation is important to us, and I will come on to that and what the Chancellor is talking about today.

Families were facing bills of up to £6,000 this winter. Tesco, which has been mentioned a lot today, says, “Every little helps”, but we think we can do better than that, because a little is not enough for many families around the country. That is why we took such decisive action with our comprehensive package, so that families would not face that. It has substantially reduced the expected peak inflation that we might have been looking at. We have supported the families who needed it the most, have been dealing with the tax burden and have cut the national insurance contributions of 28 million people as a result.

Global economic conditions are worsening, so we have had to adjust our programme. That is the sign of a pragmatic Government. We are still going for growth, but need to change how we approach it. The Government are committed to investment zones, speeding up road projects, standing up to Russia and increasing our energy supplies so that we are never in this situation again. We are making it easier for businesses to take advantage of Brexit freedoms, so that they may do things more easily, leading to lower costs, lower prices and of course higher wages. The Government are on the side of hard-working people who do the right thing, and it is for them that we are delivering.

We are putting our great country on to the path of long-term success. We are taking on the anti-growth coalition, from Labour and the Lib Dems to the protestors stopping people going to work by grinding roads and rail to a halt, as we have seen outside today. The Government’s focus is on bringing economic and political stability to the country. That will lower interest rates and restore confidence in sterling. We cannot afford any drift to delay that mission. Therefore, the last thing that we need now is a general election.

The Government have several priorities for the remainder of this Parliament. We will use the power of free enterprise and free markets to level up the country and spread opportunity. We will drive reform and rebuild our economy to unleash our country’s full potential. We will cut onerous EU regulations that smother business and investment.

A mandate is one of the reasons we are in Westminster Hall today. The Conservative party was elected with a majority in 2019. Recently, we have been through a process of electing a leader of our party who is committed to delivering that Conservative programme in government. We face significant global events that have changed our economic circumstances. We cannot ignore the impact of covid or Putin’s deplorable war in Ukraine, which has created much of the economic hardship that has pushed up the price of energy, not just for us but for the world. The Government acted immediately to provide energy support for families who needed it the most by laying out a plan for economic growth.

The UK, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson), is a parliamentary democracy and does not have a presidential system. Prime Ministers hold their position by virtue of their ability to command the confidence of the House of Commons. Consequently, a change in the leader of the governing party does not trigger a general election.

The fact that a change in the leader of the governing party does not necessitate an election is well established. There is precedent among both Labour and Conservative Prime Ministers in the past. Indeed, five of the last seven Prime Ministers, including my right hon. Friends the Members for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) and for Maidenhead (Mrs May), Gordon Brown and John Major, began their tenure in office without the need for a general election.

In many cases the next election followed several years after a Prime Minister had been in office. In the post-war era, that has become very common. Gordon Brown was in office for three years before the 2010 election, and John Major for two between 1990 and 1992. Jim Callaghan held office in the 1970s without holding an election, just as Douglas-Home held office for a year without one in the 1960s. Prior to that, Harold Macmillan was Prime Minister for two years before calling an election in 1959. Famously, Winston Churchill’s wartime Administration were in office for five years, in exceptional circumstances, without an election taking place. I could go on. Chamberlain, Lloyd George, Asquith and Balfour are all relevant examples. My point is that Prime Ministers hold their position by virtue of their ability to command the confidence of the House of Commons. There is no requirement for an incoming Prime Minister to call an election immediately on assuming office.

[Catherine West]

The Minister is very generous in giving way. He is making an important point that general elections are not always necessary. Does he agree, however, that one of the problems besetting the majority party is that before the 2019 general election, Mr Farage’s party tipped into the Tory party, and that that has resulted in it splitting in two?

[Brendan Clarke-Smith]

The hon. Member makes a good point. Of course, all political parties will at times have disagreements. One of the things that makes me such a proud Conservative is the broad church of our operation, and I believe that it is that broad church that allows many of my colleagues with differing views to come together with shared values. That is why Conservatives, who have been elected and given a mandate, can change leadership but still have a Conservative Government delivering Conservative policies.

Earlier this year, delivering on a Conservative manifesto promise, Parliament passed legislation repealing the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. It was a flawed piece of legislation, which ran counter to the core constitutional principles of our country, and I believe that it had a damaging effect on the functioning of parliamentary democracy. The Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022 returned us to tried and tested constitutional arrangements for dissolving Parliament and calling elections. It received broad agreement across the House, and I do not believe that a single Labour MP voted against its Second or Third Reading. By repealing the 2011 Act and it opaque provisions, it reaffirmed the convention that the Government hold office by virtue of their ability to command confidence in the House of Commons.

Members are in a privileged position to put views to the Prime Minister and senior colleagues, and I encourage them to do so. We have debates, such as this one, and other appropriate forums. The Government are entitled to assume that they have the confidence of the House unless and until it is shown to be otherwise. That can be demonstrated unambiguously only by means of a formal confidence vote. Thus, the Government, under the new Prime Minister, continue to command the confidence of the Commons.

The Prime Minister can call a general election at any time of her choosing by requesting the Dissolution of Parliament from the sovereign, which, if accepted, leads to a general election. As a result, the decision of when the next election will take place rests with the Prime Minister.

On the appointment of the Chancellor, who is currently giving his statement on the Floor of the House, the Prime Minister asked my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) to assume the role. As the Prime Minister has said, he is one of the most experienced and widely respected Government Ministers and parliamentarians. The Prime Minster has asked the Chancellor to deliver the medium-term fiscal plan, and he is giving a statement to the House as I speak. That will explain the support that the Government are giving.

The hon. Members for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) and for Newport West (Ruth Jones) mentioned the cost of living. That is very important to us; we want to get this right. We want to bring in the energy price guarantee. We have already given £400 to every household, with £1,200 going to the most vulnerable, and £150 back on council tax, along with other support. We want to help the most vulnerable in society and we want the right targeted packages. Of course, to do that, we need to have sustainable public finances and to show fiscal responsibility. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will talk about that today. We want to bring our debts down; we want to ensure that inflation is low; we want to ensure that interests rates are sensible. We do not set interest rates—the Bank of England does—but we want people to be able to afford their mortgages.

After I had bought my first house, the financial crisis happened—that was a difficult period for homeowners. We want to help people to get through this; we are a nation of homeowners. We want to protect people, including the most vulnerable, and, of course, we want people to be able to pay their energy bills and for their food shopping.

[Fleur Anderson]

I thank the Minister for the history lesson. I think the people who signed the petition thought that we needed a new Government not because of the change of leader, but because of the policies of the new leader—that is why so many people are signing it. Mortgages are going up by an average of £500 across the country, but that figure will be a lot higher in my constituency. Those homeowners are the ones signing the petition. They are saying, “We’ve had enough of these policies. There hasn’t been any fiscal restraint; it has been really damaging. We need a change of policies.”

The current Prime Minister lost her credibility because her Budget has been thrown out—a new one is coming—so she may need to be replaced. How many changes of Conservative party leader does the Minister think there needs to be before a general election is called?

[Brendan Clarke-Smith]

People want stability and certainty, and that is also what the markets wanted, which is why we have acted decisively. The Prime Minister has been clear and has acted pragmatically. She has appreciated when things have not worked and has changed tack as a result. That is a sign of a strong Government, and I fully support the Prime Minister in those efforts.

The hon. Member for Midlothian said that he also wanted another independence referendum for Scotland. I would argue that Scotland has already had a referendum and that people made a choice. They want the same stability; they want to know what the future holds for them. They made their choice and they see it as being part of that stability. They worry about their interest rates and their houses, and about inflation. We want to govern for the whole Union.

[Owen Thompson]

I find this slightly perplexing. A lot of the Minister’s argument has been about the strong decisions of the Government in changing their mind, and about the ability of the Prime Minister to change her mind and take a different direction. He then makes exactly the opposite argument when it comes to Scotland and deciding the constitutional future of our nation. How can the Prime Minister and the UK Government change their mind in a matter of weeks, but the people of Scotland—despite every promise that was made eight years ago during the 2014 referendum campaign—are not allowed to make a different decision?

[Brendan Clarke-Smith]

I bring the hon. Gentleman back to the point that we are in an ever-changing world: nobody expected the covid-19 pandemic or what Vladimir Putin has done in Ukraine. I take the point that circumstances change, but people want stability—they want to be able to support their families and pay their bills—and we believe that supporting the devolved Governments, working together and protecting our Union is the best way to ensure that.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

The Minister is, of course, a Minister for the Union. As the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), quite rightly said, neither of the First Ministers of Scotland and Wales have received a phone call or any contact from the Prime Minister since she has been in post. If the Prime Minister and the Government are so committed to the Union, when exactly will she be in in touch with the First Ministers, and why has it taken so long?

[Brendan Clarke-Smith]

Over the summer, Members will have heard the Prime Minister speaking with great passion about protecting the Union. The £18 billion of annual funding for the Welsh Government is the largest annual amount in real terms since devolution began, so those were not just words but actions. I can also point to the £121 million in levelling-up funding for 10 projects, the £790 million of investment across four Welsh cities, the £115 million for the Swansea Bay city deal, and the £500 million for the Cardiff city deal. I am sure that the Prime Minister will, in due course, contact those elected leaders to see how we can work closely together.

The hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) mentioned the ethics adviser. I understand that the Prime Minister is considering that matter and will provide an update in due course.

We are in extraordinarily tough times—there is a global economic crisis—and we must remember where this country was heading only a month ago. Families and businesses were fearing unaffordable energy bills higher than £6,000. Inaction would have been unthinkable and the human cost unforgivable. Businesses would have gone bust and jobs would have been lost, and that is why we took the decision to protect people and businesses from the worst energy crisis this winter.

We were elected in 2019 on a pro-growth, pro-aspiration and pro-enterprise agenda, to be on the side of hard-working people and all those who make our country great, and that is what we will continue to do. Today we have moved to cut national insurance, putting £330 in taxpayers’ pockets, and we are delivering a clear plan to get Britain growing through bold supply-side reform. Growth requires stability, and that is what we are offering. We need to move forward and deliver for the British people. A general election risks sending us back to square one by letting the anti-growth coalition into power. We will do whatever it takes to get through the storm and emerge a stronger and better nation.

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

I call Catherine McKinnell to wind up the debate. You have approximately one hour and forty minutes.

CHOGM, G7 and NATO Summits

Brendan Clarke-Smith Excerpts

Monday 4th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman has served in the armed forces himself, and he understands how difficult it can be to continue to build public support for military expenditure. But it is vital that we do this. The cost of allowing Ukraine simply to fall to Putin, or to be crushed or engulfed, would be immense. And it would not be just a political catastrophe; it would be an economic catastrophe as well, because Putin would not stop there, and the instability and economic damage would continue for generations.

[Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)]

The Scottish nationalists would cut our defence spending to 1.6%, and unilaterally disarm if they were ever to achieve independence. Does the Prime Minister agree that our new ambition to spend 2.5%, and our rock solid commitment to NATO as a guarantor of our security, show why Scotland is better off in the UK?

Sue Gray Report

Brendan Clarke-Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 25th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

No.

[Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)]

I thank Sue Gray for her report and, of course, the Metropolitan police for concluding their inquiry. Does the Prime Minister agree that investigations should be carried out without outside interference or statements towards the police or others? Will he now urge the Leader of the Opposition to respect this, too, with regards to Durham constabulary?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, that sounds like very sound advice.