Ernest Bevin
Chris Ward Excerpts(4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) for securing the debate and for his excellent speech, and I thank other hon. Members for their contributions. I am happy to have the opportunity to respond. I pass on apologies from the Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), who, as I am sure hon. Members will recognise, would dearly have loved to have responded to the debate, but is unable to be here because of a family matter, so I am standing in.
Ernest Bevin was a man of immense stature—a giant of the Labour movement and the embodiment of social mobility. He was born into poverty as the seventh child of a single mother and orphaned at the age of eight, yet he rose to be one of my party’s towering figures, one of his country’s most consequential Foreign Secretaries and one of the founders of NATO. He is aptly described by Lord Adonis in his recent biography as
“an international leader of unique charisma and authenticity.”
His life story is a testimony to both public service and to his immense perseverance, skill and energy.
Bevin never forgot his origins, keeping a photograph of his mother on his desk throughout his career. Leaving school at 11, he worked as a farm boy before moving to Bristol to take on a series of unskilled jobs, attending adult education classes and finding his voice as a Baptist lay preacher.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
On that point, will the Minister give way?
Chris Ward
I certainly will. Does my hon. Friend want to intervene because I mentioned Bristol?
Kerry McCarthy
Yes. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) on securing the debate. We do not talk about Ernest Bevin enough, even in Bristol. There is a bust of him in the Unite building, which was the Transport and General Workers’ Union building, and there is a plaque on St Werburghs, but we could do a lot more to celebrate his achievements in Bristol. In his biography, it is said that by the age 13 he was driving a van around the streets of Bristol, which is a slightly alarming prospect, but his back story is absolutely amazing and, given his background, it goes to show what an amazing man he was to rise to be Foreign Secretary.
Chris Ward
I completely agree. I would like to see Bevin celebrated more in Bristol and across the country, particularly for his contribution to NATO and to the trade union movement.
Bevin’s journey into public service was firmly rooted in the union movement, which he saw as his true calling, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington said. Bevin passionately presented the dockers’ case for a pay rise in 1920, earning him the nickname the “Dockers’ KC”. He also played a major part in the founding of the Transport and General Workers’ Union—before today, I did not know that Leamington had a significant role in that, as my hon. Friend mentioned. Under Bevin’s pragmatic leadership, the TGWU brought together 14 unions to become Britain’s biggest trade union, boasting more than 650,000 members. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) said, it is quite right that we remember that today—the day before International Workers’ Memorial Day.
When our nation faced its darkest hour in May 1940, Bevin became Minister of Labour and National Service in the wartime coalition, heralded by Churchill and across the House, as we heard. It was in using his incredible organisational talents that Bevin helped Britain to achieve a significantly higher level of civilian mobilisation than any other country managed in the conflict. Following Labour’s landslide victory in 1945, Attlee appointed Bevin as Foreign Secretary, a role in which he left his mark on the world. As we have heard, he was central to the European recovery, working to unlock billions in Marshall aid and securing western security through closer co-operation with the Council of Europe, NATO and the Commonwealth.
Bevin was a figure of huge achievement but no little controversy. To put it politely, he was sometimes blunt in his speech. He was unable to find a peaceful solution in Palestine, and he was clear about his views on empire. Not every decision he made was the right one or one that I would agree with, but we remember him rightly as a relentless fighter, a fierce patriot and a champion for the working-class Britain that traditional political elites too often ignored.
Bevin was central to the great achievements of the first of the post-war Labour Governments, and his legacy offers much that we can learn from today. In the time that I have, I will pick just three lessons that I think we can learn from the most. The first is his pragmatism and unwavering commitment to get things done for working people. As a trade unionist and a Minister, Bevin understood that practical delivery was what mattered, trumping rigid ideology. In a similar way, this Labour Government will modernise our economy, tackle the cost of living and improve health outcomes, and we will do that in a partnership with employees, citizens and employers.
The second lesson is the great value of democracy and the urgent and continuous need to defend it. Bevin’s insight was the need for post-war Europe to resist oppression in all its forms. From our support for Ukraine, our Gulf allies and NATO to the drive for energy security, this Labour Government keep Bevin’s spirit alive. He also believed in the enduring value of strong alliances through strengthening Europe and maintaining global security through NATO, and our Government remain committed to that. Deepening our partnership with Europe, maintaining the international rule of law and working with our international partners together—that is how the best Labour Governments have worked before, and it is how this Government will proceed too.
Finally, Bevin understood the true value of a Britain strengthened by embracing the talents of all its people. Through his 1943 White Paper, he successfully fought to democratise the diplomatic service, arguing that recruiting from a wider range of backgrounds would vastly improve our global understanding—I believe the current Prime Minister calls this smashing the class ceiling. Bevin warned that choosing staff only from privileged, narrow circles meant that the lives of ordinary people remained strange to them. Today, any Government who wish to effectively serve their citizens must accurately reflect them, drawing on the widest pool of talent.
Ernest Bevin pushed himself to the limit for the country he loved, famously insisting on being carried in a sedan chair to the 1950 Colombo conference despite his failing health. He proved that public service requires immense energy and a relentless focus on tangible results. On his 70th birthday, the staff of the Foreign Service each contributed sixpence towards a present to him. Sixty years earlier, Bevin had left school to work on a farm for that same sum—just sixpence a week. It was that journey that shaped him, and it also shaped the party I love and the Britain he helped to build. I am immensely proud today to recognise his service, and determined that the spirit of his achievement will continue in all that this Labour Government do.
Question put and agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
Chris Ward Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)
As I informed the House yesterday, I am bringing forward a major package of reforms to procurement policy. This includes steps to direct Government procurement in the national interest to support British businesses, to end the era of outsourcing across Departments, and to streamline and simplify the entire process. I will bring forward further details to the House as soon as possible, including when we publish new guidance.
Neil Duncan-Jordan
Since 2015, companies that donated to political parties have secured £60 billion-worth of Government contracts. This highlights everything that the public dislike about politics. Does the Minister therefore agree that for the sake of transparency and accountability, it is time to break the link between big-money donors and the Governments they pay to elect?
Chris Ward
The Government are, of course, concerned about the risks that my hon. Friend has mentioned. There are strong safeguards in the Procurement Act 2023 to preserve the integrity of the procurement process, but the elections Bill that this Government are introducing will tighten up the regulation of donations, including through a ban on crypto donations.
Linsey Farnsworth
Yesterday in this House, when I asked the Minister to include ceramics in the “back British business” procurement strategy, he said that the strategy only covers four sectors that are deemed vital to national security, while acknowledging that he would like to go further. Since then, a further 49 workers have been made redundant at Denby Pottery in my constituency. Ministers across Departments repeat the same message, but the sector cannot wait. More than 50,000 people are backing the #SaveDenby campaign by buying Denby pottery and signing a petition calling for the ceramics industry to be in the British industry supercharger scheme. Will the Minister commit today to matching that public support by including ceramics within the scope of the new public procurement changes before more jobs are lost?
Chris Ward
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue again. As I said in the House yesterday, Denby is an iconic British manufacturer, and I know the anxiety that the workforce will feel at the moment. Ceramics is not part of the original four sectors, but I do not want to stop with those four; we want to go further, and I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this issue and work with her on it. I should add that we have announced wider measures that will benefit the ceramics sector, including changes to how we calculate social value and the impact on local communities and jobs. However, I get her point, and I will happily meet her to discuss it.
Justin Madders
Last week, I had the pleasure of visiting the Royal Mail depot in Ellesmere Port, where I went in one of its newly purchased vans from the Stellantis factory just down the road—a perfect example of how we should be supporting British industry. I urge the Minister to look further at this issue, because what he has announced is a start, but it does not go far enough. We need to make sure that every school, hospital, council, utility and big provider of services in this country is looking at how it can buy British and support our great manufacturing sector.
Chris Ward
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I also met Royal Mail in my constituency recently and had a similar conversation, and I understand his point. As I say, I am not pretending that we have gone the full journey with procurement reform. We are taking big steps, but we need to go further, and I am very happy to work with my hon. Friend and others to do so.
Chris Vince
Happy St George’s day, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his earlier remarks on procurement, and I agree that £400 billion of public spending is a significant lever that this Labour Government have to better support businesses across our country. How will the Minister and his colleagues across Government work with me to ensure that our public money will be spent well and deliver for well-skilled jobs in—drum roll—Harlow?
Chris Ward
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Communities should be benefiting much more from the taxpayers’ money we are spending on procurement. I believe he mentioned two businesses in his constituency yesterday—Wright’s Flour mill and Lea Valley growers. To be clear, those are exactly the type of businesses we have in mind when we say we are trying to support local businesses to make a big impact in the community with lots of local jobs and so on. That is the kind of group I want to help going forward.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his answers and for his endeavours to try to do better. The Minister and this House must recognise that public confidence is incredibly low due to repeated failures by the Government, I say respectfully, to do the right thing. How can the Government and the Minister ensure that changes take effect that restore confidence and remove any shade from areas of government? We have an obligation as elected representatives to openness and transparency.
Chris Ward
The hon. Gentleman is right to flag that concern, and it is something that the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister is working hard on with a package of reforms around transparency. On procurement changes, I emphasise that I am trying to work with businesses, unions, charities, the voluntary sector and as many people as I can to bring them in. The more we listen to them, the more we will get this right, but he makes a broader point that I know my colleagues are working hard on, too.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
Jodie Gosling (Nuneaton) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)
As I set out to the House yesterday, this Labour Government are ending the age of outsourcing. We will introduce a public interest test to require all Departments to assess whether a service can be better delivered in-house. We will also require all Departments to publish insourcing strategies setting out how they will make greater insourcing a reality over the medium term. Taken together, that is a step change in how we approach this, and I am proud that a Labour Government are delivering it.
Jodie Gosling
Mr Speaker, I wish you a happy Warwickshire day and a happy St George’s day.
Nuneaton residents are concerned about the performance of Capita since it took over the civil service pensions. I know these concerns are shared across the House, as we have just heard some of the horror stories coming into many inboxes. Those residents will therefore be surprised to see that the Government have recently agreed a £900 million, 10-year deal for the same company to take over the civil service payroll contract under the Synergy programme. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that maintaining current insourcing is the only way to ensure value for taxpayers’ money and a decent level of service for residents?
Chris Ward
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office updated the House on this yesterday, and he has answered a number of questions on that issue. I do agree that insourcing can play a key role in delivering better value for money and higher-quality public services, which is one reason why we are introducing the public interest test and ending the age of outsourcing.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)
As I have said, this Government do not believe that our procurement rules do enough to back British businesses. That is why I have announced steps to address that, and to simplify and open up the system to small and medium-sized enterprises, start-ups and charities. We will issue new guidance shortly to ensure that the procurement regime always serves the national interest.
Leigh Ingham
Happy St George’s day, Mr Speaker. GE Vernova, in my constituency of Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages, is creating 400 new jobs to add to the 1,400 people it already employs. I believe that companies like this, which are already backing Britain by investing here, should be given more consideration when they are competing for Government contracts. Can the Minister assure me that when UK Government money is being spent, particularly in industries that are key to our national security such as energy, we will prioritise those companies already investing in British manufacturing, British skills and British jobs?
Chris Ward
My hon. Friend is spot on, and I thank her for championing her local business while making a bigger point about how we need to support British jobs more widely. We have set out what we are going to do in four sectors, including energy infrastructure, but I agree that we need to go further and look at what more we can do in particular to support our manufacturing industry, and hopefully we will keep working to do that.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)
My hon. Friend raises an important point. He is right about the reforms that we are trying to make to public procurement, and to improve our number of electric vehicles. I will write to him with the specifics on the Government Car Service.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
Chris Ward
As I have said, one aim of the Government’s procurement reforms is to ensure that we support more British companies and end the reliance on external suppliers. The two Palantir contracts that the hon. Gentleman mentions are for the NHS and defence, so it is best to take the matter up with the Department of Health and Social Care and the Ministry of Defence, which are the relevant Departments.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
In Derby we have many businesses, including small and medium-sized businesses, that are investing in people through apprenticeships or by enabling people to turn their lives around after prison through work. How will reforms to public procurement better recognise the social value that businesses provide when making procurement decisions?
Chris Ward
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that. Social value should be integral to the system, but the current system has become too tick-boxy and does not deliver what it needs to for local communities like those in Derby. We are working with businesses, unions and charities on a new definition. I am happy to speak with her further about it, but I think it is an important part of improving the system.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
If the Government are so confident in the Prime Minister’s decision to sack Sir Olly Robbins, will the Minister today rule out settling any employment tribunal in advance of a hearing or imposing any gagging orders on Mr Robbins?
Government Procurement Strategy
Chris Ward Excerpts(1 week, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on the Government procurement strategy.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)
Every year this country spends around £400 billion of taxpayers’ money on procurement—and, if we are honest, under the current complex system, we do not always spend it as wisely as we could. That is why just before the Easter recess I announced a major package of reforms to the procurement system, on which I am grateful to have the chance to update the House today. Behind these reforms are three principles: first, that procurement should do much more to protect national security and support British businesses; secondly, that it should deliver a fairer economy; and, thirdly, that it should be simpler, fairer, and open doors to small businesses and charities. Let me address those principles in turn.
This Government believe it matters where things are made and who makes them, so we will issue new guidance for all Government Departments to make use of the national security exemptions in the Procurement Act 2023 to direct procurement to serve the national interest. We will start with four sectors critical to our national security: steel, shipbuilding, energy independence and AI. That will give a clear sign that this Labour Government will back British business, and will use both the weight of our procurement budget and the powers in the Procurement Act to do so. We will also take two further steps to back British businesses. First, Government Departments will now be required to confirm whether prime contractors are using UK steel, and if they are not doing so, they will have to explain why. We will also develop a new shipbuilding framework to restrict Government contracts to British firms where this supports our national security interests.
The second principle of these reforms is that procurement should build a fairer economy, and the truth is that for decades, under successive Governments, we have had a policy that essentially adds up to outsourcing by default. Under this Labour Government, the age of outsourcing will end. We will, in line with our manifesto, introduce a public interest test, which will apply to all Government Departments. They will now be required to assess whether a service can be delivered more effectively in-house, and if it cannot, a clear explanation must be published. Departments will also for the first time be required to publish robust insourcing strategies, setting out how, over the medium term, they will build the capacity to make the biggest wave of insourcing in a generation a reality. This marks a step change in how and who our public services are run by and for, and I am proud that this Labour Government are delivering it.
We will also strengthen the role of social value in procurement. Too often, this has become a mere tick-box exercise and a barrier, not an opportunity, for SMEs and start-ups. Working with trade unions, businesses and others, we will create a new definition of social value that will underpin all Government procurement.
The third principle of these reforms is to make the procurement system simpler and fairer. I have heard too many times how the complexity, duplication and endless form-filling of the current system is among the biggest barriers to SMEs and charities, so we will undertake a rapid review of all existing requirements in the procurement system, and we will see which burdens and duplications can be removed. If they are not essential, we will scrap them. We will enforce a “tell us once” principle—
Mr Speaker
No, you do not look at the clock. You look at me, and you sit down. Ministers have three minutes for responses to urgent questions. I do not know who may have told you differently; there is something wrong in the advice being given. It is three minutes. I presume you are now going to conclude immediately.
Chris Ward
Yes. My apologies, Mr Speaker. I was told it was five minutes, but I completely apologise.
Mr Speaker
Order. When I stand up, please sit down—do not remain standing at the Dispatch Box. I am sorry that you were told five minutes, but I think that Ministers should know by now how long they get for a statement or a UQ. It is becoming an impossible situation, where Ministers try to change the rules of the House. These are not my rules; they are the rules of the Back Benches. Please adhere to them.
Chris Ward
I can only apologise, Mr Speaker.
In conclusion, these reforms will back British businesses and workers, build a fair economy, and simplify and open up our Government procurement system. There is still much to do, but this is a big step forward and I am grateful to have had the chance to set it out to the House today.
Leigh Ingham
Through a change in procurement policy that is more focused on backing British businesses, investing in Britain to help secure thousands of good, unionised jobs, and remaining community-focused, the Government will make sure that local people are reaping the full rewards from this move. I welcome it, and I welcome the Minister’s response to my urgent question. Could he please outline the first steps to deliver this procurement reform, and what it will mean for manufacturers in my constituency and in constituencies around the UK?
Chris Ward
My hon. Friend has raised the importance of changing the procurement rules with me a number of times—she is a tremendous champion on this. On next steps, the Cabinet Office is working on new guidance that we will put before the House very shortly—I hope before the summer recess—which will make flesh the commitments I have made today. As I say, it has three big principles behind it: backing British businesses, creating a fairer economy and making the system simpler and fairer for all.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) on securing this urgent question—I know how rare it is for a Government Parliamentary Private Secretary. [Interruption.] She is not any more—I apologise. I welcome the Government’s ambition to modernise public procurement, but ambition, as ever, must be matched by delivery. There are a number of questions that the Minister must answer today.
The Government promised transparency through a new online register of commercial agreements. When precisely will that register be live, and will it be comprehensive from day one? Ministers often speak of backing small business. Will the Minister publish in a single, accessible place every Department’s SME target, its latest outturn and whether it is on or off track? On prompt payment, how many suppliers have actually been excluded from major contracts for failing to meet the required standards? If this strategy is truly about value for money, why have the Government still not resolved the fragmentation, poor-quality frameworks and poor use of data and technology that were identified by the National Audit Office?
On national security, contracting authorities are now required to assess risks not just from prime contractors, but from associated persons and subcontractors. How many procurements have been referred for national security consideration, and how many suppliers have been excluded or challenged as a result? What assurances can the Minister give that public contracts are not still flowing into supply chains with links to hostile states? What assessment has the Minister made of the EU’s emerging “Buy European” policies? Is that not a protectionist barrier by the European Union?
Finally, if social value is now mandatory at 10%, what assessment has been made of the risk that it adds cost and complexity, particularly for SMEs? I know that the House will want clear answers.
Chris Ward
I thank the hon. Member for those questions—let me try to answer a few of them.
First, on SMEs and Department spend, as I say, part of the aim of this package is to support SMEs and ensure that they have a greater chance of winning contracts. We did publish the departmental spends the day before recess. I know that there was a lot going on, but we have published them; they are there. They show an ambitious step forward. I believe that around £7 billion of Government contracts will go to SMEs as a result of those changes. I am proud of what we are doing; it is the first time that the Government have done it. We have helped drive that through and have worked hard on that.
The hon. Member asked about “Buy European”. That is not in conflict with any of our international agreements or, obviously, with our negotiations with the EU that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office is leading on, and we work closely on that. At the heart of this package is a recognition that we need to use our procurement budget within international law and international regulations to do more to support our industries. That is the right thing to do, and I hope that we can get cross-party support.
The hon. Member asked about social value. Again, I think he was implying that we are making this mandatory. It is already mandatory and it is already weighted at 10% within the contracting system. I am not changing that; what I am saying is that I am changing the definition of social value so that it does more to support communities and to ensure that it really works, so there is no change on that.
The hon. Member asked me a couple of specific questions about national security. I will get back to him if that is okay, but in general terms, I hope that we can get cross-party support on this. The Procurement Act 2023 was passed with cross-party support and was a step forward, but this is the next big step in trying to ensure that we do much more with that budget to support Britain.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
I applaud the Government’s move to use the £400 billion of public procurement—almost one eighth of British GDP—in the interests of the British people and the British economy. The Science, Innovation and Technology Committee has often heard that a Government contract is worth more than a Government grant to the start-ups and spin-outs that are so important to our economy. Will the Minister confirm that this approach will be joined up with our strategy for sovereign capability, so that we do not find ourselves once again in the position where the Ministry of Defence awards a contract without competition to a large US artificial intelligence company, as happened with Palantir, when there are UK companies that are desperate for that kind of investment?
Chris Ward
My hon. Friend brings a huge level of expertise and background experience to the issue. I reassure her that part of the package that I announced before Easter is aimed at helping our sovereign AI industry and our science and technology industries, and boosting start-ups. In the time that I have been doing this job, a lot of the stories that I have heard are about how the procurement rules work fine for companies that have a large procurement department to try to win the contracts, but they are not so good for start-ups or voluntary businesses that are trying to win their way into Government contracts. We should be doing much more to help those companies and, yes, we are joining this up across Government, including through the industrial strategy and the steel strategy that I spoke about earlier.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
We need to do far more to back British small businesses through public procurement, both to boost growth and to ensure our national security. Public procurement amounts to hundreds of billions of pounds a year. The Procurement Act was meant to ensure that more of that money reached British small businesses, but in practice many report that it has made things worse. Payment rules are being flouted by middlemen who face no consequences, suppliers who complain are threatened with losing future work and bad debts are mounting. Public money is disappearing into a vacuum and there is a security risk. There are businesses that are asking, “What is the point of legislation that rogue traders can ignore with complete impunity, while loyal British SMEs are being pushed out of the market they built?” Does the Minister agree that the target for Government spending with small businesses should be far higher than the current level? Will he explain when the payment reporting transparency will implemented?
Chris Ward
I basically agree with the hon. Lady’s assessment of the procurement system and how it does not do what it should do. As I say, £400 billion of taxpayer money is being spent. We need to ensure, as far as we can, that every pound that is spent supports British industry, supports jobs and delivers fairness, and it must also support SMEs. The Procurement Act made progress towards helping SMEs, but it does not go far enough. It is not the job of this Government to defend the status quo; it is the job of this Government to change it, so we will do that. I will come back to her on the specific point about payment thresholds.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham), my Staffordshire neighbour, on securing this urgent question. The Government are taking the right steps towards this procurement strategy, but there is a lot more that could be done if they wanted to truly buy British, back British and build British. That could start with the Government Car Service. The Minister will know from the answers that he has sent to my written parliamentary questions that one third of the Government Car Service uses foreign cars, and that police services in this country use foreign-made cars. He will know that we import bricks to build houses that are paid for by Homes England, which is funded by taxpayers. Will he look at the easy wins that he can make by looking at how the Government are a consumer of products? He could reorientate that spend towards British companies this week.
Chris Ward
There are few greater champions of the buy British agenda than my hon. Friend, although there are a few of us in the Government as well. We are trying to make progress on that agenda. What I am setting out today is what I can do with Government guidance and by using the exemptions that already exist in national security restrictions. We have not jumped to legislation; I am trying to use the powers that I have. The point that he is making is about a bigger agenda that I hope we can get to, in order to drive forward more support for British industry. This is the start of it but it is not the end, and we will work with him on doing that.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Too often consumers buy products that, when they get to examine them, turn out to have been manufactured in places like China. What safeguards do the Government have in their new procurement strategy to ensure that there are no concealed foreign supply chain components in the contracts that they intend to award? Why are the SMEs—or any companies—that are bidding having to demonstrate trade union recognition if they might have a workforce that do not require that?
Chris Ward
On the right hon. Gentleman’s first point, we have robust processes in place on supply chains, which the Department for Business and Trade leads on. The announcement that I made before Easter does not change that; the strategy sticks with the existing protections that we have under the Procurement Act regulations. What I am talking about here is how we can use those powers to direct Departments and use Government buying power to do more.
On the right hon. Gentleman’s point about union recognition, I am sorry but I missed the very end of his question. There is nothing in the strategy that changes union recognition within the procurement system—that can already be weighted within the social value requirement—but it takes an important step on insourcing for Government Departments. I am incredibly proud that this Government are doing that and it is part of the manifesto on which we were elected.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for the changes, which are a welcome vote of confidence in UK business and industry. I welcome the rapid review of existing requirements that we know can slow down the procurement process, leading to frustration and inefficiencies all around. Ahead of International Workers’ Memorial Day, will he commit to having inclusive personal protective equipment as a specification in any new public sector procurement contract, and lead the way on improving workplace safety?
Chris Ward
This is not the first time that my hon. Friend has raised this issue and we have met to discuss it. She is championing this important matter that addresses an inequity that is felt by many workers. The Cabinet Office is working on this point. At the moment, our view is that mandation is not the right way forward and that we can work with industry to try to roll this out. Equalities law already offers protections and should ensure that such PPE is delivered, but I accept that that is not always happening—my hon. Friend has made that case incredibly powerfully—and I am keen to keep working with her, the GMB and others on this issue.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Some £400 billion was spent on public procurement last year, so I would like to ask the Minister a question that I asked his predecessor over a year ago, which she was unable to answer then: what is the Government’s precise savings target from that budget?
Chris Ward
What an excellent question! I am afraid that I will have to get back to the hon. Gentleman as I do not know the answer—[Interruption.] None of the measures in the announcement that I have made require additional Treasury funding—they are within existing budgets—but the point that he makes is a good one, so I will come back to him, if that is okay.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
Will the Minister join me in congratulating Bedworth company Toye, Kenning and Spencer on its proud history of ribbon weaving and supplying ribbons for insignia and medals to the Queen, the King and the Government for many years? Will he tell me how the procurement strategy will help other local manufacturers in North Warwickshire and Bedworth?
Chris Ward
I certainly can. I thank my hon. Friend for raising that company. It is exactly the kind of British company that we want to help and back, and such communities should have a real stake in how procurement money is used. I hope that we can do more on that, and I am happy to take up this specific point and this specific company with her.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
On the Business and Trade Committee, we have heard time and again that if we want to transform the economic health of small and medium-sized enterprises, we need to direct a greater share of public procurement towards them. However, the British Chambers of Commerce has said that we are “stuck in a rut” at 20% of spending going to SMEs. What is the Minister doing to join up the approach across Whitehall to ensure that a greater amount of spending goes to SMEs?
Chris Ward
I agree that more money from the procurement budget should be going to SMEs, and we are already taking steps to do that. We have announced powers so that contracts can be reserved in local communities and we have increased the amount of Government spending. As I have said, the spending targets across Whitehall mean that for the first time over £7 billion of Government money will now go to SMEs. I am working closely with the Federation of Small Businesses and lots of small businesses on that. I thank the FSB and others because the reforms announced today, which are aimed at supporting SMEs and voluntary sector organisations, have been designed in collaboration with them. They know that the system is not working, just as I know it is not working, and we need to get more money down to those businesses. So we have done a bit—we have done a lot of stuff—but there is a lot more do to, and the strategy is part of that.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
As the Member for Amber Valley, I represent Denby Pottery, which sadly is in administration and I am desperately trying to save it. It is a joy in this House to use crockery made in the UK, and I welcome the Minister’s recent announcement on procurement, but I have written to ask him to go further by including ceramics—I look forward to receiving his response in due course. May I take this opportunity to repeat my request so that we do not lose a whole sector by degree?
Chris Ward
I appreciate how important Denby Pottery is to my hon. Friend’s constituency and how difficult it will be for workers there at the moment. I understand that Government officials have been working with Denby Pottery in recent weeks to ensure that support is in place as the administration process unfolds, and I hope that will support the workers affected as much as possible. I think she will have some support from Members on the Bench behind her on the broader point about the ceramics industry. In this package I have announced that we will look at the four sectors that are immediately critical to national security using the existing powers we have. That is not where I want to stop, but it is what I can do at the moment. I want to go further, and I am very happy to work with my hon. Friend and others to try to do so.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
The Minister is right to try to support small businesses by cutting red tape, but will he explain why, while he is saying this at the Dispatch Box, another part of Government is requiring any business seeking a Government contract to demonstrate trade union recognition? Does he accept that that is completely irrelevant as to whether a business provides a good service and good value for money? Does he appreciate that that only imposes additional costs on businesses?
Chris Ward
Trade union rights are not inconsistent with what I am setting out. I am sorry, but I do not know what point the hon. Gentleman is making, because there is no requirement to have trade union recognition in Government contracts in the procurement system. I am not changing that or how that plays out; I am trying to simplify the system and remove burdens where I can. I am trying to look at the procurement system from start to finish, strip out all the duplication and erroneous stuff that has crept in and made it like a Christmas tree over time, and make it simpler and fairer. That will happen at the same time as ensuring that we deliver the generation of insourcing that this Government were elected to do, which can bring to an end decades of outsourcing by default.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. An important aspect of Government spending is food procurement in the NHS, on which £500 million is spent every year in England alone. May I stress to the Government that we must ensure that we back British farming and British food and ensure that the processes we are undertaking support our British farmers?
Chris Ward
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a link between food security, national security and economic security, which is an increasingly important part. The reforms that we have announced deal, in the first instance, with the four sectors that we feel are the most immediately available with the powers we have, but that is not where we want to end. I am happy to work with him, the farming industry and others to see what more we can do.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
I appreciate much of the statement that the Minister has made regarding procurement. I will deflect his attention to textile procurement, especially as the Ministry of Defence has contracted £37 million-worth of military gear to foreign factories, including in China. Some £23 million-worth of NHS personal protective equipment is manufactured abroad. All the while, my constituency has factories and a workforce, and we are ready. We are suffering with a cost of living crisis, so can I ask the Minister to consider onshoring textile procurement?
Chris Ward
Yes, the hon. Gentleman can. As he can clearly detect from what I am trying to say, the thrust is that I want to do more to support British businesses and industries, and I want to ensure that we are doing everything we can within the existing powers to do that. We have set out four sectors in which we feel we can do that straightaway, and I am sure there are others that we can look at. I am happy to work with him on that.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
Like me, many in Portsmouth will welcome today’s announcement, particularly the new shipbuilding framework and the commitment to reward bids that deliver local jobs and skills. Will the Minister outline today—and meet me to discuss—how these reforms will help to ensure that cities such as Portsmouth, from which shipbuilding was removed by the Tories, can once again share in defence, maritime and energy infrastructure, and benefit from AI procurement opportunities?
Chris Ward
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Obviously the shipbuilding industry is incredibly important for her constituency and for others around the country, and specific points in this package are designed to support that. To re-emphasise, we will work with the National Shipbuilding Office to try to work on a specific framework to ensure that we can direct procurement to British companies to deliver shipbuilding. For too long that has not happened, and we have seen in recent weeks and months the importance of having a sovereign capacity to do that. Portsmouth is a fine place to try to do so, as are other places around the country—I should not get too far into that. That is one of the reasons we picked shipbuilding early on and why we will work with the NSO to try to do that, and I am happy to meet with my hon. Friend.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
PVL is a SME in Burgess Hill that fabricates high-visibility livery, supplying 80% of police vehicles and 40% of ambulances. It is being hammered by the rules enacted in the Procurement Act 2023. Converters are the middlemen who take a regular vehicle and turn it into an emergency appliance. The 30-day payment terms set out in the Act are not enforceable. New tendering requirements cost time and money, but converters are under no obligation to use approved suppliers, and converters often go out of business owing money to the rest of the supply chain. That is a colossal waste of public sector money. Will the Minister agree to visit PVL, which is just over the border from his constituency, so that we can discuss these challenges?
Chris Ward
It is always nice to have a kind invitation to come up the road to Burgess Hill. The hon. Lady raises a really good point. I do not know the specifics of the company, but she raises exactly the kind of case that we should be trying to support. I am happy to meet, and if she sends me the details of the company, I will look into that.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the Minister’s statement. For many years it has seemed to me that while our European partners have been able to have significant sovereign procurement programmes, we have so often tied ourselves up in knots and been unable to do the same. My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) slightly gazumped me with his question. The Government have a commitment to ensure that half of all food purchased across the public sector is locally produced or certified, so what can we do to connect the Minister’s plans with cutting out the middleman and ensuring that farm-gate produce is essential to our procurement programme?
Chris Ward
Building on that previous point, it is really important that we do as much as we can to support British farming and have a national plan for food security. I am happy to take up the specifics and to work with my hon. Friend and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on that.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Is there an expectation that the procurement principles enunciated today will be followed through with local authorities? If so, can we expect to see an end to the scandal of bodies such as Transport for London buying Chinese buses, rather than British-made buses? Are we going to do anything about that?
Chris Ward
I would very much like to do so. I have spoken with the Department for Transport about this. This is a broader issue about how we work with regional authorities and within our system of devolution, because that is where the power lies for some of these decisions. I am working with the Department for Transport on this matter, and I am happy to keep the hon. and learned Gentleman updated on it.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) on securing this important urgent question, and I thank the Minister for his statement. Businesses in my constituency—a manufacturing town—strongly welcome this new approach, and we should be unashamedly proud to back our British businesses. Can the Minister reassure me that he is speaking to small businesses, local authorities and our trade union colleagues on defining social value so that we get this right and truly and proudly back British businesses for the future?
Chris Ward
Absolutely. We should be much prouder, as a Government and as a political party, about supporting British businesses and local communities. That is what I am trying to do with this statement. On working with others, I have been working on this matter for many months, as did my predecessor—we have worked on this matter with trade unions, businesses, voluntary sector groups and charities. The proposals that I have brought forward are an amalgam, but they are not the end of the road. Work will be done with the unions, businesses and so on to try to get the guidance right and put these through. I should also say that one of the reasons I am particularly proud of some of this work is that it has been welcomed both by trade unions and by businesses. It is not often that that happens these days, and I am particularly pleased that we have managed to achieve it.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I also welcome the Minister’s response to the urgent question and the proposal to go British first in our procurement strategy, with over £400 billion spent per year. The Minister is no doubt aware that Members across this House, including myself, have repeatedly raised concerns about Palantir’s ethics, its record of complicity in human rights abuses, including the genocide in Gaza, and the way it has secured extremely large public contracts here in the UK. Can he explain how awarding hundreds of millions of pounds—in many instances with no full, open tender process—to a single US surveillance and technology firm, which over the weekend released a dystopian manifesto for world domination, is compatible with a modern procurement strategy that claims to have transparency, value for money and the public interest at its heart?
Chris Ward
The hon. Member is right to say that part of what I am trying to do is support British businesses and reduce our reliance on others. On his specific point about Palantir, the two contracts to which he refers are NHS and Ministry of Defence-led contracts, so his questions are probably best directed at those Departments. If he wants to write to me, I am happy to try to pick that up as well, but they are NHS and MOD contracts. They did go through the procurement process, but those were the lead Departments.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
I very much welcome what the Minister has said about the principles behind how we will use £400 billion of Government procurement to back companies up and down this country, and the workers behind them, by buying British. However, of course, many billions of pounds more are spent across the wider public sector, including by local authorities, the NHS and the police. Can the Minister tell me more about what he will be doing to bring those other bits of the public sector on board as he develops this process, especially to back the automotive trade?
Chris Ward
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. To clarify, the guidance that we are bringing forward and the reforms that I am talking about today will apply to Government Departments, not to the broader public sector. That is because Ministers and the Government do not have the power to direct beyond Government through mere guidance—I would need primary legislation to do so. That is something we are pushing very hard on, and I hope that legislation will come forward in a future Session. However, what I hope everybody notes, including the market and local authorities, is that the reforms I am announcing today are the reforms that I want to see rolled out across the public sector, working with local authorities as well. We want to test and learn in Government and roll out these reforms more widely, but that would require primary legislation.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I want to ask the Minister a very specific question about Northern Ireland. In light of the recent Public Accounts Committee report that has highlighted the fragmented nature of procurement in Northern Ireland, with nine separate centres of procurement expertise, what steps can he take to ensure that SMEs, which he mentioned earlier, are not further disadvantaged by conflicting administrative requirements across those bodies? How will the promised Tell Us Once digital platform be successfully integrated with Northern Ireland’s existing eTendersNI system to prevent duplication of the bureaucratic burden on small firms that are struggling?
Chris Ward
The hon. Gentleman raises a really good point. As I said, one of the three principles behind this strategy is to reduce duplication, reduce burdens and simplify the system. My feeling in general is that over the years, the people who have held my job have added more and more bits to the Christmas tree, making it more and more unwieldy, and I want to try to strip that back. If it is okay with the hon. Gentleman, I will ask him to write to me about his specific points, and I will pick them up. I am very happy to meet him to discuss those points as well.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I congratulate my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham), on securing this urgent question.
In Newcastle-under-Lyme, we make excellent British bricks at Ibstock in Chesterton, and I draw the Minister’s attention to my ten-minute rule Bill on British bricks. Will he take the opportunity to confirm today that the changes he has outlined will result in a “British brick first” approach to public contracts as we build the homes, community centres, schools and hospitals that our communities desperately need?
Chris Ward
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his ten-minute rule Bill. He has raised an important issue, one that is obviously incredibly important to his constituency and many others. As I say, we are starting with the four industries I have set out today, but we will look at others going forward, and I would be happy to talk with him and see what more we can do in future.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his answer to the urgent question. It is common sense that we use the Government’s procurement power to support British jobs, but sadly that common sense is lacking in Scotland, where the Scottish Government are buying ferries from Poland, Turkey and China. Yesterday, Unite highlighted that the Scottish Government have given a grant to private bus companies in Scotland to buy 166 buses from China; meanwhile, publicly owned Lothian Buses is using its share of the grant to buy buses from the fantastic Alexander Dennis Ltd. Does the Minister join me in hoping that on 7 May, Scotland will vote Labour to elect a Government who put British jobs first?
I have a Fox’s Burton’s Companies UK biscuit factory in my constituency, which makes a delicacy known as the Jammie Dodger biscuit. Will this change make it more likely that when I next visit the Minister’s Department, Jammie Dodger biscuits will be available to me?
Chris Ward
I have to say that of all the questions I was mulling over when I was going through this, the impact on Jammie Dodgers was not top of my list, but maybe it should have been—I will think about that. My hon. Friend makes a good point about how the Scottish Government have not used their procurement powers well enough over the years, and the fiascos he highlighted demonstrate that. It is a shame that no one from the SNP is in the Chamber to hear what he says, but it is good that Labour MPs are present to make the case for doing more to support jobs in Scotland.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for his response to the urgent question tabled by the hon. Member for Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages, my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham). Can the Minister tell the House how this Labour Government’s reforms to public procurement will unlock hundreds of millions of pounds for our SMEs and, in particular, how they will benefit SMEs in Harlow?
In response to other hon. Friends, the Minister mentioned food security. Sadly, we do not make Jammie Dodgers in Harlow—maybe we can have a conversation about that—but although it is important that we support our farming industry, I also draw to the Minister’s attention the Lea Valley growers in my constituency, who are glasshouse growers, and Wright’s Flour, which is our flour mill.
Chris Ward
I thank my hon. Friend for his question—he has raised a number of points. He talked about supporting SMEs, which is incredibly important to what the Government are trying to do more broadly, and specifically to what these reforms are trying to do.
If you will permit me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I also want to point out that we should do more to support the voluntary sector. In my opinion, the charitable sector does not get a fair enough crack at this, and the system is weighted against it. In particular, I have in mind a visit I made to a women’s centre in my constituency, in Brighton, a fantastic charity that has been doing amazing work for a long time. It told me that it was spending £30,000 to £35,000 on a procurement process, having to divert resources that should be used to support people in real need in order to compete in a procurement process that is stacked against it because the big companies and the big providers have the money and expertise they need. We cannot defend that kind of status quo, and I will not do so, which is why we are trying to introduce this strategy.
Mr Joshua Reynolds
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Cabinet Office was asked several times about trade union requirements in public procurement contracts, yet Hansard records him as saying on 4 December that
“The Government’s social value model provides opportunities to reward suppliers that recognise a trade union”.—[Official Report, 4 December 2025; Vol. 776, c. 1144.]
Could I seek your guidance as to how I could ask the Minister to confirm those two points together?
Chris Ward
I would just point out that an opportunity is not a requirement. The question I was being posed was about a requirement to recognise trade unions—that is not the same as an opportunity to reflect that within the system. That is the difference between those statements, and as I have said, nothing in the strategy changes the status of trade unions within the procurement system. What it does is deliver on our really important manifesto commitment to end the age of outsourcing and bring more work in-house.
Intergovernmental Relations Dashboard
Chris Ward Excerpts(1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)
The Government commitment to working in genuine partnership with the devolved Governments continues to be reflected in the depth and consistency of our engagement.
As the Prime Minister said when he first came to office, to ensure that we are indeed a United Kingdom, it is crucial to give greater importance to respect and collaboration in the service of all people, across all parts of this country. This is essential to tackle our shared challenges and build a United Kingdom that works for everyone.
Between April and September 2025, UK Government Ministers held 214 meetings with their counterparts in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast, across formal intergovernmental structures and direct bilateral engagement.
This level of contact, maintained even across the summer recess period, remains higher than in comparable periods and reflects the value we place on sustained, collaborative working relationships.
Beyond formal forums such as the British-Irish Council and Interministerial Standing Committee, ministers and their devolved counterparts met across a wide range of policy areas—from trade strategy and EU matters to migration and economic growth—demonstrating that collaborative working is now embedded across Government.
This pattern of engagement reflects a broader truth: that the most effective solutions for people across the United Kingdom are found when Governments work together, drawing on the knowledge and priorities of each Administration.
As the publication of this dashboard shows, this Government remain fully committed to the devolution settlements and genuine partnership with the devolved Governments to deliver for people all across the United Kingdom.
[HCWS1449]
UK Common Frameworks Publication
Chris Ward Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)
Following sustained and constructive dialogue with the Scottish and Welsh Governments and the Northern Ireland Executive, I am informing the House that three frameworks have been published by the UK Government on behalf of the Scottish and Welsh Governments, and the Northern Ireland Executive:
Blood safety and quality common framework
Organs, tissues and cells common framework
Late payment common framework
This brings the total number of finalised common frameworks to eight. This is in addition to four bilateral common frameworks finalised with the Northern Ireland Executive and published on 26 February by the Department for Transport: rail technical standards; commercial transport and operator licensing; driver licensing; and motor insurance.
These documents have been updated to reflect changes in both policy and legislation since the common frameworks were laid for scrutiny, and accommodate many of the recommendations made, not only by the UK Parliament, but also legislatures in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. In addition, changes have occurred in key areas such as the Windsor framework replacing the Northern Ireland protocol. The Windsor framework has reduced regulatory divergence between Great Britain and Northern Ireland for goods remaining in the UK. The standard text was updated in the relevant common frameworks following agreement by the four Governments.
The continued efforts and joint working by the four Governments have enabled the operation of the full programme of common frameworks since they were provisionally published in 2021-22. The final publication of these frameworks is an excellent example of strong communication and collaboration. It demonstrates that together, the four Governments of the United Kingdom can take the right decisions for the benefit of citizens and businesses, protecting the integrity of the UK internal market.
For completeness, it was agreed between the UK Government and the Northern Ireland Executive that the specified quantities common framework was no longer required as this had little risk of divergence, and the four Governments also agreed that the mutual recognition of professional qualifications framework is not required at this time.
As we look ahead, we are focused on the future transparency of the programme. The UK Government are clear that this should not only allow the four legislatures of the UK insight into the effectiveness of common frameworks, but also ensure that all relevant stakeholders with a specific industry interest can utilise this information.
Finally, the UK Government are firmly committed to the speedy finalisation of the remaining common frameworks. We continue to work with the devolved Governments to complete the remainder of the programme and the Government will update the House on those developments in due course.
[HCWS1421]
Draft Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 (Amendment) Order 2026
Chris Ward Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 (Amendment) Order 2026.
The draft order flows from the legislation agreed by the House yesterday afternoon, and is a necessary and technical measure to address a historical misapplication of the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975, which sets ministerial and other office holders’ pay. The office holders within scope are the Leaders of the Opposition in both Houses, the Speakers in both Houses, the Chief Opposition Whips in both Houses and two assistant Opposition Whips in the Commons. The context for the order is that in 1997 a formula was introduced to link pay increases for Ministers and certain office holders to senior civil service pay bands. That formula set out that ministerial salaries should be increased by the average annual change in the mid-point of senior civil service pay bands.
During the financial year ’23-24, the Cabinet Office identified that the formula had been misapplied. Since the introduction of the formula in ’97, the salaries of permanent secretaries have often been excluded from the calculation despite the 1975 Act not permitting such an exclusion. That technical misapplication has happened under successive Administrations over several decades. The formula was originally proposed by the Senior Salaries Review Body, which recommended that permanent secretary pay should not be included in the calculation for ministerial pay. This Government believe that the policy that has been applied since 1997 in line with the SSRB recommendation is the correct approach. This Order in Council is being introduced to ensure that the law aligns with long-standing policy.
The order performs two primary functions. First, it resets the statutory salary levels for all Ministers and specified office holders. Given the historical misapplication, resetting the salaries in law will give legal clarity and a baseline for any future uplift. Secondly, the order amends the formula to exclude permanent secretary pay bands from any future calculations. That change simply formalises the policy approach that has already been applied in practice for several decades on a clear legal footing.
For the initial financial year beginning 1 April, the order sets out transitional measures where the higher of the old or new formula will be applied to ensure that no individual is disadvantaged by the retrospective effect of this order. The order’s impact is therefore minimal: it only affects ministerial office holders and a small number of office holders in Westminster.
For Ministers, this order will result in no change to their take-home pay—a point I emphasise with no little disappointment! The Prime Minister has maintained that the policy of freezing ministerial salaries for all Ministers will continue; it has been in place since 2008. The order therefore does not affect individuals who choose to take their entitled salaries. The Government have been unable to calculate annual pay increases while work on the order was ongoing, so we will provide back payments to current and former office holders dating back to 1 April 2023, which is when the mistake was identified. This legislation is also linked to the salaries of Chairmen and Deputy Chairmen of Ways and Means, which increase through the same formula. They will also receive back payments dating from 1 April 2023.
The Government are bringing forward this order to address a historical misapplication of the 1975 Act, which sets ministerial and certain office holders’ pay. It is a necessary, technical and minimal measure to address a misapplication of the law, and it ensures that the law aligns with long-standing policy under successive Governments. I look forward to hearing from other Members of the Committee.
Chris Ward
I thank the Opposition for their broad support. I will not be drawn too far on Whips’ salaries, if that is okay, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for the spirit in which that point was raised.
As I said, although it is technical in nature, the order helps to iron out a discrepancy in application, and makes sure that the law has an accurate effect. As I have outlined, it is not about creating new policy or changing ministerial pay. I am afraid that I do not know the answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question about pension entitlements, but I will get back to him shortly.
As I say, the order addresses a historical discrepancy that was entirely accidental and that it is important now to rectify. With that, I commend it to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill
Chris Ward ExcerptsTuesday 17th March 2026
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Act 2026 View all Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Act 2026 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)
I thank the limited numbers who took part in this debate, taking advantage of the lack of a time limit. This is a simple Bill with just two clauses, and it has a simple purpose: to increase the number of Ministers who can be paid to 120, which is the average number of Ministers since 2010. It is also rooted in the simple principle that holding ministerial office should not be dependent on individual wealth.
The Bill, as my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General set out, amends the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975. It does so to better reflect the nature of modern government, including the number of Ministers any modern Government tend to require. It allows, but does not require, a maximum of 120 salaried members across both Houses. That number is based on the average number of Ministers since 2010 under successive Governments. Since 2010, an approximate average of 11 Ministers have been unpaid in each Government. I know that is not among the great injustices of our age—hence this is a short Bill—but the Bill addresses a clear inequity that limits those in the other place who are able or willing to take on a ministerial role. This Bill rectifies that, broadening the bench of those able to serve as Ministers. It recognises that private income should never be a requirement to serve as a Government Minister.
Sir Gavin Williamson
Was any consideration given to reducing the ministerial total, as against increasing it, in preparing this Bill?
Chris Ward
The number of Ministers in the current Government is virtually the same as it was in the previous Government. I think actually it is one lower than the previous Government. The intention of this Bill—this speaks to a point raised by a couple of Members—is not at all to increase the number of Ministers or the size of Government; it is simply to rectify the anomaly of unpaid Ministers in the other place. The right hon. Gentleman served in several Governments of this size over the past 10 years, and he asked why this Bill should come forward at this time. One answer to “Why now?” is that the leader of the Conservative party in the House of Lords proposed it in an amendment. It was put forward by the Conservative side. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position that that was wrong. That is one of the reasons this has come forward, and it is one of the reasons for addressing the inequality with which we are dealing.
Let me refer to a point that was raised by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart). The Bill will allow, but will not require, one additional salary at Secretary of State rank. It is for the Prime Minister to decide whether or not it goes to a Secretary of State; Parliamentary Under-Secretaries can be rewarded as well, as can Ministers of State. The Bill also allows four additional salaries at Minister of State or Secretary of State level, and 11 additional salaries overall. As I have said, those limits are cumulative, which means that the Prime Minister has discretion to make the awards. There is no prior intention; it is about discretion.
Let me turn briefly to what the Bill does not do. As the Paymaster General said, it does not alter the salaries of Ministers, much to the disappointment of the former Deputy Prime Minister. They will remain frozen, as they have been since 2008. The Bill does not necessarily create additional ministerial roles; this is a point that was raised. Indeed, it simply reflects the average number of roles since 2010. It does not alter the maximum number of paid Commons Ministers, which remains at 95—it effectively reserves 25 places for Lords Ministers—and, of course, it does not affect MPs’ pay, which is rightly entirely independent of this House. All that the Bill will do is increase the maximum number of salaried Ministers, so that it is in line with the average number of Ministers over the last few Parliaments. As I have said, the size of the Government remains unchanged, and the Government have no intention of increasing it. The purpose is merely to allow higher numbers to be paid, and to remove that inequity.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) raised the issue of the amount of minimum service for severance pay. The Government have already addressed that by introducing a power requiring a Minister to serve for six months before any severance payment can be made, thus removing some of the absurdities under the last Government, which she rightly pointed to. People were being paid for a day, or in some cases a few hours, in the job. She also raised the matter of second jobs. I remind her that the Labour party has a manifesto commitment to address that, and to ensure that second jobs are permitted only in particular circumstances—for doctors, for instance. The Modernisation Committee is dealing with that issue. I am keen for it to be addressed as quickly as possible, but it will come back to the House.
The hon. Lady mentioned the ethics adviser. Let me emphasise again that at the beginning of this Government, the Prime Minister made changes; there was an increase in the role and the independence of the independent advisers, so that they are truly independent—we have seen that they are, on several occasions—and the ethics adviser can now initiate his own inquiries. That is an important point. The hon. Lady also asked what roles the new salaried Ministers would fulfil. As I have said, that is a matter for the Prime Minister, and we have no intention of changing that.
Lisa Smart
The Minister of course will know that the Prime Minister is responsible for the contents of the ministerial code. While the ethics adviser can launch an investigation, the Prime Minister reserves the right to raise concerns about any such investigation, so that the independent adviser does not proceed. Have I understood that correctly?
Chris Ward
As I have said, the Prime Minister polices the ministerial code and has responsibility for it. The independent adviser was given the power to initiate his own investigations of Ministers, which is, I think, an important step forward. It comes, in part, because of some of the problems we saw under the last Government. I think that the role of the independent adviser has been significantly strengthened under the present Government.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I am reminded of that great fictional character Sir Humphrey Appleby, who once observed that a party with 300 members gets to form a Government, but 100 are too young and too callow, and 100 are too old and too silly, so the Government pretty much select themselves. I congratulate the Minister on making it into the middle group.
On the subject of second jobs, being a Minister is essentially a second job, for which the Minister is remunerated. Does he not feel that it is a bit mean-spirited to pull up the drawbridge on other MPs who might desire to have a second job, just as he does?
Chris Ward
I thank the hon. Gentleman for flattering me by not putting me in the first or third group. As I say, the Labour party has a manifesto commitment to limit second jobs significantly. It is not about pulling up the drawbridge in all circumstances; there will be exemptions, particularly for people who serve in the NHS and so forth. However, I do think that we should consider the hon. Gentleman’s point. There is a basic expectation from the public that being a Member of this House is an MP’s one and only job, except in exceptional circumstances, but this matter is being dealt with by the Modernisation Committee, and we will look at its findings.
The right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) said that nothing bold or radical is being put forward, but I point out that this Bill comes alongside a number of other reforms that this Government are delivering to modernise our democracy. Last week, following the Herculean efforts of the Paymaster General and others, legislation was finally passed to remove hereditary peers from this legislature—and not a moment too soon.
Chris Ward
I will not, because I know the right hon. Gentleman is not a great fan of that legislation. In a few months’ time, this Government will also introduce legislation to widen the franchise to people aged 16 and 17, delivering on our manifesto commitment. What better sign of bold and radical constitutional reform than removing hereditaries and broadening the franchise? I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman, because I am feeling generous.
Sir Gavin Williamson
I thank the Minister for his generosity. He is right to say that the Government have moved to remove hereditaries, which is an important step forward, but they have failed to do a number of other things that were in their manifesto, including introducing an age limit and making rules about attendance. Can he give some clarity about when that legislation will come forward, and about whether he can also get rid of the bishops?
Chris Ward
I thought that the right hon. Gentleman might raise the bishops. He is quite right to say that the removal of hereditary peers is a step forward in modernising the other place, but it is not the conclusion of the process. Our manifesto commits to a number of things that will be included in the second phase of Lords reform. A Committee is being set up to advise on how we go forward. I look forward to debating that second phase with him, and issues including a retirement age and other steps for modernising the second Chamber. However, those steps are quite far removed from this Bill.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, this is a simple Bill. It has a very narrow purpose, and it is designed to address a very simple inequity. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Committee of the whole House (Order, this day).
Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill (Money)
King’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Stephen Morgan.)
Question agreed to.
Draft Procurement (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Chris Ward Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Procurement (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. The Procurement Act 2023, which was introduced under the last Government and passed with cross-party support, is a step forward in making public procurement simpler, more transparent and more trustworthy. It is not the whole journey, of course: we will be setting out further reforms shortly to ensure that our procurement budget goes further and does more to support jobs and growth and to reduce unnecessary burdens on businesses. The Act does deliver progress, however, and reflects a clear expectation from the public that procurement should be open to scrutiny, that spending should stand up to challenge and that public money should always deliver value.
The public rightly want to know what the Government are buying, who we are buying it from and what we are paying. That is the gap that the draft regulations will fill. They will not change how contracts are awarded, but they will complete a key element of the Procurement Act’s transparency framework by making it possible to follow significant payments under public contracts, and on a single central platform. That will strengthen confidence in the system, support better contract management and drive better value for money. It will benefit contracting authorities and suppliers, and the taxpayer too, by tightening fraud prevention and ensuring proper scrutiny of how our money is spent.
This statutory instrument will implement section 70 of the Act by amending the Procurement Regulations 2024 to set out what payment information must be published for payments of more than £30,000 under public contracts, and how it must be published on the central digital platform. It is designed to be proportionate and manageable, requiring quarterly reporting and applying only to contracts procured from 1 April 2026.
The draft regulations also include a small number of connected measures that will make the transparency system work properly across the market. They will ensure that, where a supplier is awarded a notifiable below-threshold contract, which is generally more than £12,000 for central Government and £30,000 for non-central government, they are registered on the central platform. That will close a significant transparency gap, while improving the visibility of small and medium-sized enterprise and voluntary, community and social enterprise participation in public procurement.
The draft regulations will also require contracting authorities to state in below-threshold tender notices when a competition is reserved for SMEs and/or VCSEs. That will make sure that when an opportunity is reserved for SMEs or VCSEs, it is clearly flagged up front so that it is easy to find, bid for and, hopefully, win.
The draft regulations will also make a limited set of practical and technical amendments to keep the regime functioning as intended. That includes flexibility for direct awards in scenarios in which it is urgent to protect life, public order or safety, or where the central platform is unavailable. Additionally, they incorporate minor corrections and consequential amendments; notably, they will facilitate the move away from the old Contracts Finder system. That is intended to remove duplication and ensure that the new Find a Tender service is the single place to publish and find information.
The draft regulations will generally apply to all of the UK, but in Scotland and Wales they would not be applicable if the procurement were carried out by devolved Scottish or Welsh contracting authorities, unless they were using a reserved procurement arrangement. The Government have obtained agreement from the relevant Northern Ireland Department in respect of provisions that apply to procurements regulated by Northern Ireland Ministers. Those are limited to the corrections and technical amendments and do not include the implementation of section 70 or the amendments relating to below-threshold contracts.
In conclusion, the statutory instrument will complete an important part of the Procurement Act’s transparency offer. It will make payment publication meaningful by linking payments to contracts, it will close transparency gaps, and it will keep the system coherent and workable.
Chris Ward
I thank the hon. Members for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire and for Hazel Grove for the tone of their contributions. I welcome their cross-party support; as the draft regulations follow the Procurement Act introduced by the last Government, I would have been surprised not to get it, but it is still nice to hear it.
In answer to the question about the central digital platform, it is fully operational. The final phase is to implement the last legislative requirements, which will be rolled out later this year, in time for the requirements coming into force. On the timetable, the technical amendments in the SI will come into force the day after they are made; others will come in on 1 April, and the changes related to Contracts Finder will come in on 1 October.
On the points raised by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, there are no national security concerns that I am aware of, but I will write to her if anything further comes in on that. I am glad to have her support.
The core of the draft regulations is simple: the public should always be able to follow significant payments under public contracts in a way that is meaningful, joined up and transparent. The regulations will help them to do that by linking payments to contracts and suppliers on one platform.
I thank Cabinet Office officials for all their work on this SI and to implement the Act: a lot of work has gone on. I am grateful to colleagues across Government Departments and the local authorities that we have been closely working with. The hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire mentioned work with contracting authorities; we have worked very closely to get people ready for this measure and to make sure that it works properly. I thank everyone for their work and engagement. I hope that Members will join me in supporting the regulations, which I commend to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Procurement Act 2023 (Specified International Agreements and Saving Provision) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Chris Ward Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Procurement Act 2023 (Specified International Agreements and Saving Provision) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. The purpose of this statutory instrument is to implement the procurement chapter of the UK-India comprehensive economic and trade agreement via an amendment to the Procurement Act 2023.
The UK-India CETA was signed on 24 July 2025. It is one of the most significant and ambitious bilateral trade agreements that the UK has concluded since leaving the EU. India is of course one of the economic heavyweights of the 21st century and is likely to become the third largest global economy by the end of this decade. Our trade with India is already worth £47 billion a year, up 15% year on year, and it is of course a market with huge and growing demand for imports, presenting major opportunities for British businesses and procurement.
However, India’s markets are also behind some of the highest trade barriers in the world, locking out many British businesses. The deal we have secured knocks down many of those barriers and goes well beyond India’s agreements with other countries. Indeed, it opens the door for British businesses on an unprecedented basis, especially in respect of Government procurement.
The procurement chapter will unlock around £38 billion a year of contracts in sectors such as advanced manufacturing, healthcare, construction, infrastructure and clean energy. For the first time, UK companies will be able to compete for those contracts. Alongside that, we are gaining access to India’s procurement portal, providing a line of sight for British businesses on a huge and growing market. Under the terms of the agreement, British businesses will have access to procurements above £478,000 for goods and services, and £5.3 million for construction services.
We have also gained exclusive treatment for UK bidders to be treated as class 2 suppliers under the Make in India policy. This will apply if at least 20% of the product or service is from the UK or India. That will give British companies a significant competitive advantage, as it goes beyond anything negotiated by others. We have also achieved commitments on fairness, openness and transparency, including the use and accessibility of e-procurement systems, and we have agreed requirements for the publishing of notices and awards of contracts and domestic review procedures for businesses to challenge should the chapter’s rules not be followed correctly.
Our agreement is also significantly stronger than the political agreement the EU has now reached with India. In particular, we have negotiated unique access to India’s £38 billion federal procurement market, something the EU has not obtained. The EU also does not have any agreement relating to class 2 status under the Make in India policy.
Those are the benefits of the agreement legislated for in the regulations; I will turn briefly to the process for introducing them. As Committee members will know, the regulations were laid on 19 January in order to bring the trade agreement into force as quickly as possible while allowing for parliamentary scrutiny under the proper process. They will update schedule 9 to the Procurement Act 2023, implementing in domestic law the UK’s procurement obligations in the agreement. Suppliers entitled to benefit from it will be considered “treaty state suppliers” under section 89 of the Act, which will provide them with equal access and rights in UK public procurement as are afforded to UK suppliers. In turn, the agreement requires India to provide comparable access to UK suppliers.
The Procurement Act 2023 (Commencement No. 3 and Transitional and Saving Provisions) Regulations 2024 are also being amended to ensure that the UK’s obligations under the agreement apply in relation to contracts that can still be entered into under the previous procurement regime.
The territorial application of these regulations in relation to contracts under the 2023 Act extends to England and Northern Ireland. It also extends to Scotland and Wales, but not in respect of procurement carried out by a devolved Scottish authority or regulated by the Welsh Ministers. The Welsh Government, with whom we have been in discussion, are making a separate SI to implement this agreement. It was laid in the Senedd on 10 February and is scheduled for debate on 10 March and due to enter into force on 31 March, the day after these regulations.
The Scottish Government are implementing the agreement separately under their own legislation, which was laid before the Scottish Parliament on 7 January and considered by the Economy and Fair Work Committee on 4 February. The Scottish Parliament approved the SI on 18 February, and it will enter into force on 24 March. The territorial application of this SI in relation to contracts under the previous procurement regime extends to England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The procurement chapter unlocks unprecedented access to India’s federal procurement market. It covers access to approximately 40,000 tenders per year worth at least £38 billion per annum. It is good news for British businesses and our economy, and I hope hon. Members will join me in supporting these regulations.
Chris Ward
I am grateful for the spirit in which the debate has been carried out.
The hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire rightly mentioned that the regulations build on the Procurement Act passed under the last Government. That is a good thing, although we will set out plans shortly to improve it. He is quite right that nothing in the regulations affects the national security powers, and that the regulations tidy up contracts completed prior to the Procurement Act—that is why they are important.
On business engagement and impact assessment, this is really about getting a foot in the door of the Indian market for UK businesses, and it is very hard to model the impact of that at this stage. It is a large and growing market, with huge demand for imports. Until we gain access, as we have done, to the procurement portal and are established in the market, it is hard to know the exact material economic benefits, but obviously we hope that this will be a first step in that. As I say, it is a foot in the door that is greatly welcomed. I should point out that the Department for Business and Trade is working incredibly hard on business engagement in India. We have a team on the ground there to try to maximise this and capitalise on it as much as possible, and they are working really closely with British businesses to make sure that they can do that.
In terms of application, the regulations come into force on 30 March. The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 process has been completed on the broader trade deal, so this will align with that. As I said, our aim is for the agreement to come in as quickly as possible.
On the point raised by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove about services and the ambitious nature of the deal, we estimate that the agreement is worth around £5 billion a year to the UK economy. For an individual trade deal, that is very significant; as I say, it is more ambitious than a lot of the deals that have already been completed, and it is the first type of deal like this that the Indian Government have agreed.
While none of us is in the mood to relitigate Brexit, or talk through that too much, I will make two minor points. First, Britain has negotiated a stronger deal than the EU. As I said, the EU has not gained the same arrangements around the Make in India policy and treatment of suppliers as class 2, and it has not gained access to the procurement portal in the same way that we have, so our deal is materially better. Secondly, I gently say that if the Liberal Democrats want to enter a new customs union, they should know that any free trade deal that we did on that basis would not be an independent free trade deal; it would be a trade deal agreed by the EU, and it would be on qualitatively inferior terms, because the EU has just negotiated its deal and ours is stronger. There is a consequence to the position that the Liberal Democrats take. I hope that helps; if there are points that I have missed, I will write with further detail.
In conclusion, this agreement is a major milestone in our relationship with India, a vast and growing economy that we hope British businesses can contribute to as much as possible. Implementation of the procurement deal is a big step forward for us, and I hope colleagues will join me in approving the regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
Chris Ward Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)
The Government strongly support inclusive PPE for all workers and welcome the new British Standards Institution standard. Central Government commercial teams have seen increased provision of inclusive PPE across major programmes and projects. I know how seriously my hon. Friend takes this issue; so do the Government, and I hope to meet with her soon to discuss it further.
Kirsteen Sullivan
With the Government on a mission to build 1.5 million new homes and invest billions in upgrading critical infrastructure, fit-to-form PPE is more important than ever for the expanding workforce. The Government have an opportunity to embrace BS 30417 and use the state’s substantial purchasing power to increase employee safety through inclusive PPE for all. Will the Government commit to becoming an early adopter of the standard and lead industry by example?
Chris Ward
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: fit-to-form PPE is vital to protect all workers, and I agree that there is an opportunity for Government to do more here. We welcome the new standard and think it will contribute to good practice, and we will monitor how that proceeds. I understand that the BSI will present on this to the construction sector soon. My hon. Friend and I are due to meet shortly, and I look forward to discussing how we can take this forward.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)
The Government are determined to ensure that our £400 billion-a-year procurement budget supports British businesses. The Cabinet Office has published the digital, data and technology playbook, which provides guidance on how to source and contract digital data and technology projects. It includes guidance for all Departments, including the Department of Health and Social Care.
Sonia Kumar
We have seen the devasting impact of cyber-attacks on British companies and the NHS, and there are serious concerns about the NHS data being entrusted to external firms such as Palantir. What steps is my hon. Friend taking to ensure that new NHS IT systems are secure, ethically governed, protect patient data and public trust, and are British where possible?
Chris Ward
My hon. Friend raises a serious point, which builds on the last question, which the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, who is also the Security Minister, answered, and the question about digital ID. If it is okay with my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) , I will write to her about the steps that the Department is taking and how we are working across Government on this important matter.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)
As part of our new partnership with the EU, we are currently negotiating an agreement to link emission trading schemes. This will lower costs for businesses and consumers, and, alongside the food and drink deal mentioned previously, add £9 billion a year to our economy. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office speaks regularly with Commissioner Šefčovič on this, and we will keep the House updated on progress.
Tom Hayes
The EU’s carbon budget amendment mechanism came into being on 1 January. It affects the IFA2 interconnector between Britain and France, which I visited recently. CBAM is a trade block for UK electricity exports to the EU, imposing costs on exporters of £2.2 billion, and it robs the Treasury of up to £8 billion at a time when we need that money to invest in our public services and to have a stronger buffer against external shocks. Does the Minister agree that we should not be shooting ourselves in the foot and throwing away money, as the Conservatives would do, and that we should instead be boosting trade, boosting energy security, boosting our national security and seeking an exemption from CBAM?
Chris Ward
Absolutely; I could not agree more. At the heart of the negotiation on which my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office is leading is how we reduce bills, ease the route to decarbonisation and reduce our reliance on volatile fossil fuel markets, which, as we have seen in the last week, is not just a national security issue but a cost of living issue. That is why we are working so hard on it, and why such work is broadly welcomed by so many businesses.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
Mr Alaba
I thank the Minister for that response. Small businesses are the backbone of our local economies, but in my constituency, sunny Southend East and Rochford, they are held back by traffic congestion on the A127. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that local infrastructure projects, such as a new link road for south-east Essex, receive cross-party prioritisation, and can drive productivity and growth for small and medium-sized enterprises?
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)
My hon. Friend refers to the A127, and I could mention that the A259 in sunny Brighton has the same hold-ups, but we will not dwell on that. He is right that we need to do more to support SME growth and productivity, and to free up opportunity across the country. We have recently changed procurement rules to make sure that more money—and more power as well—is kept in local communities. We will publish further plans soon. I hope that Transport Ministers have heard his point about a new link road.