Covid-19 Inquiry
Florence Eshalomi Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Pat McFadden
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his response and for the tone in which he spoke. He set out what the previous Government have done, and in my statement I acknowledged that progress has been made, but I think it is also right that a new Government take the opportunity to have a fresh look at this, with fresh eyes and in the right spirit.
The right hon. Gentleman asked a couple of questions on consultation with the devolved Administrations. Yes, that is essential, as is consultation within England with local authorities and elected mayors. It is important that different parts of the country work together when there is a national emergency. There were also questions about how this operates within Government and the balance of responsibility between the centre and individual Government Departments. Baroness Hallett is quite clear that in a truly national emergency the centre has to step up and responsibility cannot be left to individual Departments.
The right hon. Gentleman was right to conclude with the spirit of co-operation that we need on this issue. This work is in the national interest and in the public’s interest. It is the first duty of any Government of any political stripe to do what they can to protect the public. The challenge is that the risks we face are more complex and more unpredictable than they have been in the past. As I said in my statement, we cannot fully plan for every risk, but we have to try to have a system in place that gives us the best possible chance of planning for the risks we can see in front of us.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Like everyone, my thoughts are with the many victims who tragically lost their lives. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the hard-working staff at St Thomas’ hospital in my constituency who cared for so many people in their last dying days, and who cared for the former Prime Minister when he caught covid-19. You will be aware, Mr Speaker, that the national covid memorial wall is in my constituency—a stark reminder of the many lives that were lost, each heart painstakingly painted by a family member and dedicated to their lost one. It is a reminder of the many lives that were lost. Will my right hon. Friend visit the covid memorial wall with me and meet the families, and look at how we can make that wall permanent? This is not just about resilience, but about remembering those victims who tragically lost their lives.
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to pay tribute to the staff at St Thomas’ and other NHS staff across the country, who did so much to care for people during that very difficult period. I have visited the memorial wall in her constituency, and she is right: it is an incredibly moving and human experience. I am very happy to take up her invitation to visit again.
Debate on the Address
Florence Eshalomi Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
May I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) on his fantastic speech? As the eldest of three girls, we like the last ones because we can blame them for everything.
It is an honour to follow my hon. Friend and to second the Loyal Address, not only for me but for my constituents across Vauxhall and Camberwell Green. When I was asked by the Chief Whip, my excitement was quickly replaced by fear because I remembered my attempt to make a Big Shaq reference during Second Reading of the Procurement Bill, which went completely over the head of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) and indeed many other Members in the Chamber. I nearly backed out, but then I remembered that this is my opportunity to get on record that Nigerian jollof is the best jollof, before my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare) puts forward any other ideas.
It is nearly 15 years since a Labour Member seconded a Loyal Address; the last Labour Member to do so was my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), my good friend. I have to say that the notices I receive when she visits my constituency are perhaps my favourite. I remember receiving a note from her office saying that she was going to tour the Beefeater Gin Distillery in my constituency the next evening and that I should join her. Sadly, I do not drink gin—but I know that she drank my share! I can only say that I look forward to welcoming other Members to my constituency many more times during this Parliament. Can I remind all Members that it is their duty to let me know if they are attending one of the many fabulous parties in Vauxhall and Camberwell Green—otherwise I will be complaining to Mr Speaker.
It truly is a wonderful constituency. We have the National theatre, the British Film Institute, the Southbank centre, the Young Vic and the Old Vic, which is currently hosting a play about the life of an MP in which James Corden turns out to be one of their constituents—although I believe he lives in California, so perhaps he should get in touch with the Leader of the Opposition.
We also have the London Eye. I am sure the whole House will be delighted to know that it received permanent planning status in May this year. That keeps it safe even from the clutches and planning reforms of the Chancellor and the Deputy Prime Minister. We have communities from all over the world. Even among the sea of England shirts on Sunday, there were a few brave Spanish fans proudly wearing their colours—although they may have just been SNP MPs.
We are also home to a number of MPs, advocacy groups and journalists, which means, when I am trying to avoid a journalist or to politely decline an invitation, I often get hit with the dreaded line, “Oh, but I am a constituent as well”. I do warn journalists and Members that I shall continue my policy of giving no special treatment when they come up to me with any casework.
Like many continuing MPs, the area that I represent changed significantly at this election following the boundary review. Sadly, this means that I no longer represent one of the Brixton estates that I grew up on, my church and my old primary school. The church is central to my life and it is a microcosm of Lambeth. After mass, I can see the impatience on the faces of my family as I often discuss varied casework from the congregation. I just want to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) that she is going to receive multiple blessings for all that varied casework. I know the wards that I have lost will be well represented by her. Then again, based on past experience, not all the lobby journalists will notice that anything has changed.
If the House will indulge me, I wish to speak briefly to a couple of policy issues that are close to my heart and to the hearts of my constituents and that I am looking forward to working with the new Labour Government on. As an MP, one of the hardest conversations that any of us will have is with the victims of violent crime. I have sat in many front rooms holding grieving mothers and fathers as they tell me about their loved ones who have been taken from them too soon. With every hug and tear wiped away, I can feel their pain and the impact that that has on the siblings and other family members. Crime rips communities apart, leaving too many people vulnerable and open to exploitation.
One area that I am proud to work on is preventing abuse of gang-associated girls. Sadly, their mistreatment is just one example of why our streets need to be safer. The Home Secretary’s commitment to halving rates of violence against women and improving the support for victims should be welcomed across the House.
Over the last couple of years, I have seen at first hand the impact of the cost of living crisis on my constituents in Vauxhall and Camberwell Green and on communities right across the country. We also know that tackling climate change is one of the most urgent issues facing the world, and that we cannot delay meaningful action any longer. I am therefore very pleased that the Government are committed to addressing both issues with an investment in the clean energy transition that will lower energy bills for households and restore the UK’s reputation as a climate leader.
But for millions of working people, real change will not come without action on housing. That is why I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister’s plans to build 1.5 million new homes across the country, including a new wave of council houses, like the one that gave me and my family security. I still remember that daily commute from a B&B in King’s Cross, and the excitement on my mum’s face when we received the keys to permanent housing—we no longer had to lug our belongings around in black bin bags. Sadly, in 2024, that is still the case for so many people. Vauxhall and Camberwell Green is also home to a high number of young people, many of whom are private renters. The power that section 21 gives immoral landlords to evict tenants for no reason is an outrage. I am glad that the Government will finally ban no-fault evictions for good.
Lastly, I am proud to be an advocate for the eradication of HIV and AIDS—an issue on which we have made so much progress recently. Alongside my fellow co-chairs of the all-party parliamentary group on HIV and AIDS, in November last year I had the honour of hosting a reception in Mr Speaker’s House to thank Sir Elton John for his work in this field over the last 40 years. It was a fantastic event, at which our new Prime Minister reaffirmed his commitment to ending new HIV transmissions in the UK by 2030. It also means that today’s royal event is the second in the last 12 months at which I have had the privilege of speaking—because we can all agree that Sir Elton is music royalty!
This Parliament sees a large churn of MPs, so may I take this opportunity to congratulate and welcome new Members? Don’t worry if you get lost; I have been here almost five years and I still get lost. My one piece of advice is this: make sure you know where Westminster Hall is, because you will always find the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) there, on hand to point you in the right direction—after he has finished speaking in whatever debate is going on that day!
Although it was wonderful seeing so many Labour MPs winning on 4 July, it was mixed with a slight sadness that we had to say goodbye to colleagues who worked across the House for their constituents with great dedication. Although I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) in her place on these Benches, I want to refer to the important work I did with her predecessor, my friend Nickie Aiken. As the two MPs responsible for Westminster bridge, we worked together in the last Parliament to commemorate the horrific 2017 Westminster bridge attack, in which six people sadly lost their lives, including the late PC Keith Palmer, and to improve the safety of a very busy and active part of London. Nickie also worked tirelessly to ensure that the Pedicabs (London) Act 2024 was brought into law, despite the persistent objections of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), which I am sure many new Members will also get used to.
I also pay tribute to the outgoing Father of the House, Sir Peter Bottomley. I remember, as a new MP, walking into a meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on votes at 16. The room was buzzing with excitement, energy and all these young people, and—to my surprise—Sir Peter was in the chair; he really proved that age is just a number.
I must mention my good friend and former constituency neighbour, the new Baroness Harriet Harman. Her 42 years in office blazed a trail for the rights of women in politics and wider society. When Harriet was elected, just 3% of MPs were women; that figure now stands at 40%. While there is some way to go, that rise is a testament to Harriet’s unending work and drive never to take no for an answer. While I am daunted to have the responsibility of representing parts of her former constituency in Camberwell Green, I could not have had a better example to learn from. My pledge to her and my new constituents is that I will do my best to carry on her legacy and be a strong voice in Parliament for those communities.
Lastly, I cannot think of a more fitting replacement as the Mother of the House than my good friend, our auntie, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). She was elected when I was just six years old, and seeing her in the media, making the voice of black women heard in Parliament, gave me the confidence that I could stand here and ensure people in my community had a voice in the decisions that impacted them. I say to her, “We stand on your shoulders, and we respect and salute you. Thank you.”
I welcome the Government’s plan to introduce draft race equalities legislation to build on that work, and I look forward to working with Ministers to develop it. We should not underestimate the difficulties that both Baroness Harman and my right hon. Friend have gone through to make their voices heard, or the challenges they face even now, but their trailblazing examples mean that those of us elected today face fewer challenges in representing our communities, and we have more friends to go through those challenges with. Because of them, Mr Speaker, a black working-class girl from a south London estate can stand before you today with the honour of seconding this Loyal Address.
Infected Blood Compensation Scheme
Florence Eshalomi Excerpts(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Glen
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her sensitive portrayal of the individual circumstances of her constituent. The financial vulnerability that impacts so many of the affected because of the impact on the infected is the reason that we are bringing forward the scheme in this way. I am happy to confirm that the affected individual will be able to claim in their own right, informed by the qualification of the infected individual and the estate of the infected individual. Again, I recognise that a tariff-based system will inevitably have limitations, and that is why, beyond getting the parameters absolutely right in terms of the severity bandings, care costs and so on, there must also be an appeal mechanism and a mechanism to challenge, such that we can ensure that everyone receives justice in an individual way.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
Earlier this year, on 18 January, I raised the case of my constituent, Nigel Winborne, a victim of infected blood. As a result, Nigel developed various health issues, including renal failure and liver cirrhosis. I said that Nigel wanted a
“faster resolution to the infected blood scandal compensation before it is too late for myself and others to see full and final resolution”.—[Official Report, 18 January 2024; Vol. 743, c. 1016.]
Sadly, Nigel was too ill to contact me again, but his sister mentioned that she did not want him to be the latest statistic in this horrible affair. Nigel passed away on 9 March. He was just 63 years old. I spoke to his partner earlier this morning, and he is absolutely devastated. They had lived together for over 20 years and he dedicated his life, giving up his career, to be Nigel’s full-time carer. That 90 days will seem like 90 years for them, so on his behalf, I ask the Minister: can this timeline be expedited as soon as possible?
John Glen
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her tribute to Nigel and his life, and I am very sorry to his family for the loss. I recognise the frustration of even one day’s delay. I have done everything I can to move these payments forward as quickly as I possibly can, recognising all the different dependencies. If I could write the cheques myself personally, I would, but I cannot. I will continue to do all that I can. I said that these payments would begin in the summer, and I want them to happen as soon as possible. The 90 days is not a deadline, and it is not an obligation, but we want to get them out as soon as possible, and where we can, we will.
Oral Answers to Questions
Florence Eshalomi Excerpts(7 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Glen
As I have said, if the House of Commons has indicated its will by the amendment, that piece of legislation moves to the House of Lords and the Government will respond at that point. That is the week after next. That is the process of the House. I have recognised the need to ensure that we get the clinical, legal and care experts in place. They are in place, and they are working on some of the complex issues the hon. Lady alludes to. The psychological support is now in place, but I am doing everything I can in every dimension of this complicated problem to deliver as quickly as I can.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
I have just listened to the Minister’s response, and I appreciate that the situation is complex, but people are dying. My constituent contacted me earlier this week. He has renal failure and cirrhosis of the liver. He wrote asking for
“faster resolution to the infected blood scandal compensation before it is too late for myself and others to see full and final resolution”.
It might be too late for my constituent—he cannot wait two more weeks—but can the Minister outline how many people have received interim payments and how many are still outstanding?
John Glen
A large number of payments were made available quickly in the last quarter of 2022. I fully recognise the absolute tragedy that this is. Every death is a tragedy. This is the biggest scandal in the NHS’s history. I recognise and acknowledge that. The victims’ organisations said that there were 141 deaths last year, and I am doing everything I can to find solutions as quickly as possible.
Israel and Gaza
Florence Eshalomi Excerpts(10 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
Those hostages should be freed unconditionally—they should never have been taken in the first place. We will continue our diplomatic efforts to ensure not just their wellbeing but their safe release. That is why our conversations with the Qataris, among others, are so important, and evidence that that diplomacy is paying off has been demonstrated in the past few days. However, there is clearly considerable work to do, given how many more hostages are being held against their will. These people were kidnapped from Israel. They are innocent people. They should not be there, and they should be unconditionally released.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
I received an email from a constituent the day after the horrific terrorist attack in Israel. She was worried about the safety of her brother and his friend, who are also both Vauxhall constituents. Working with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, they thankfully made it to the border with Jordan, and are now back home. However, I recognise that this is not the case for so many people. So many people are still worried for their loved ones. The killing of innocent people at a music festival should shock us all, and the kidnapping of innocent children should be condemned. Every night that I put my six-year-old and eight-year-old to bed, I think of those innocent children, kidnapped without their parents. We should all call this out.
Israel has the right to defend itself, and how Israel does so matters. The Prime Minister has touched on the humanitarian work that he has been doing, which I welcome. However, having listened to Members this afternoon, and given the volume of emails I have received from Vauxhall constituents, does he agree that a temporary humanitarian corridor will help get that urgent aid through to Gaza?
The Prime Minister
We are working on efforts to get more humanitarian aid into Gaza. The crossing is now open, aid is being pre-positioned to el-Arish and neighbouring areas, and we are intensifying our conversations on logistical support as well as further financial support. I am pleased that the hon. Lady’s constituent’s family were able to exit—I assume via the west bank. Just for Members’ information, we are also working on that side of the conflict to ensure we can support those British nationals who have registered with the Foreign Office in their safe departure from the west bank, should they so choose. Border Force teams and others are engaged on that side of the conflict as well.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. I apologise to the House, but we are out of time. For those watching, I would like to place on record the fact that a significant number of Members have not been able to be called, but the fact that that is so does not mean they are not interested. I thank them all very much for their patience.
Florence Eshalomi
It is, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Earlier this afternoon the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) mentioned some of the horrific chanting this weekend. He also mentioned that a London Underground tube driver had said the word “jihad”. To ensure clarity—at this really sensitive time, our words matter—should the hon. Member not come and correct what he has said, because it has been stated that the London Underground staff member actually said “Free Palestine”, not “jihad”?
Mr Deputy Speaker
The hon. Lady is well aware that all hon. Members are responsible for their own words in this place. If the hon. Gentleman feels that he has something that he wishes to amend, he will do so, but that is not a matter for the Chair.
G20 Summit
Florence Eshalomi Excerpts(11 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right about the need for global co-operation when it comes to AI safety. It is obviously a technology that does not respect national borders. Again, this is an area where the UK is demonstrating leadership, building on our expertise and our leading position in AI research. We are having the conversation with partners about what that principles-based approach to regulation would look like, to ensure consistency across jurisdictions. We are also seeing what we can do to make sure that the UK is the leading place for that AI safety research, and that is the work of our AI taskforce, which is currently under way and proceeding well.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the African Union as a permanent member of the G20. Africa is one of the fastest-growing economies in the world and it is important that her voice is at the table discussing major global issues such as climate change, security and economic stability. My own country of origin, Nigeria, is one of the largest in Africa; it has over 223 million people, which is rising daily. Can the Prime Minister outline what steps his Government are taking towards a strategy for the continent?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady for her excellent question and join her in saying that we were delighted to agree the African Union’s membership of the G20. She is right to highlight the increasing importance of Africa in global affairs. Over the next decade or so, Africa’s population will double to 2.5 billion people, with 60% of them under the age of 25. Also, Africa contributes just 4% of global emissions but is home to 35 of the 50 countries most at risk from climate change, so it is important that we are engaged and supportive. I can tell her what we are doing. Now that we have left the European Union and are in charge of our trade policy, we have changed our tariff structure so that 98% of goods imported into the UK from Africa will enter tariff-free. We are making sure that our just energy transition partnerships help countries such as South Africa with their transition, mobilising billions of dollars of support. Next year, we will be hosting the Africa investment summit with over 20 different countries, because the UK, as measured by foreign direct investment, is the largest investor in the continent.
Draft Official Statistics Order 2023
Florence Eshalomi Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank the Minister for his very brief opening speech. Since the start of the year we are just 15 short of 1,000 references to statistics in Hansard—I hope that our debate today will make it 1,000.
The frequency with which statistics are used in our debates shows the tremendous power and influence that they have over our politics and political system. They provide a vital pulse on the education of the nation, helping us to determine the success and failures of policies and concentrate minds on the areas of concern.
The statistics referenced in the Commons come from a variety of sources, from charities and lobbying groups to data collected by the Government and many arm’s length bodies. That is perfectly healthy. Statistics should not be excluded from the official sources that we are discussing today. Statistics from unofficial sources allow for a variety of opinions, novel methods and original research beyond the purpose and scope of official statistics, but it is also useful to highlight when statistics are from official sources, as they come with certain guarantees of methodology and central authority that are rooted in the public good. This measure allows us to have a certain understanding about the country, and forms the basis of the commissioning of statistics by the Government and Ministers.
I am pleased to say that we do not oppose the specification of “official statistics” as continued under this instrument, and we understand the need to update what counts as statistics as and when public bodies transform in structure, or where there is a need for or redundancy of statistics in certain areas. As the Minister pointed out and the explanatory memorandum outlines, the vast majority of the changes in this order are simply organisational, representing names, mergers and similar changes in structure.
I would just like the Minister to respond to one question. The only outlier on the list is the Natural Environment Research Council, which the Minister briefly touched on. NERC has been merged into UK Research and Innovation without UKRI being granted the official statistics change. It seems strange to drop an official statistics status for an environmental research body without replacing it, but I understand that NERC did not produce much in the way of statistics. I also understand why it may not be appropriate for UKRI as a whole to be included at the moment and that there are no great calls to change that. However, will the Minister confirm that sufficient statistics will be produced in the environmental field through bodies such as the Environment Agency?
More widely, although we do not disagree with the concept of official statistics, it is important to highlight that they still have limitations with consequences that we should be aware of in policy development. Statistics can reveal a great deal of information about the state of the nation but, if we are honest, they can also leave out a lot of nuance and things that are hard to measure or quantify. It can be easy to fall into the trap of finding the easier-to-quantify measures in a subject area and then work to simply reduce that number, while failing to address the root cause of the problem or help those who fall through the cracks. We do not need to get into specifics today, but it is important that we treat all statistics with caution and study the methodologies and gaps as much as we study the headlines. I will leave it there, but I would be grateful if the Minister could briefly address the omission with respect to the NERC.
Oral Answers to Questions
Florence Eshalomi Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chloe Smith
Yes, I would be happy to meet the Chair of the Select Committee.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Science, Research and Innovation (George Freeman)
As the Prime Minister has made clear, we are putting maths at the heart of our curriculum. I am ensuring that maths is properly funded to our research ecosystem. I will happily meet the hon. Member and talk to her about it.
Procurement Bill [Lords]
Florence Eshalomi ExcerptsTuesday 13th June 2023
(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Procurement Act 2023 View all Procurement Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 13 June 2023 - large print - (13 Jun 2023)
Alex Burghart
My hon. Friend will know that is a length of a piece of string question. In setting up the unit and providing it with resource, we are mindful of the need for it to be able to respond swiftly to emerging threats and to new entities. The unit will not serve its purpose if investigations go on too long. I cannot give him any guarantees on maximum length of time for investigation, but I can assure him that those concerns are very much in our thoughts as we go about establishing this new way of working.
The new unit will also have a role in supporting and upskilling contracting authorities. By directly engaging with them and providing guidance, the unit will help contracting authorities confidently implement the national security exclusion and debarment regime correctly, maximising its effectiveness.
Amendments 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 33, 35, 38, 53, 54 and 55 are minor and technical amendments to ensure that the exclusions and debarment regimes can function effectively.
I take this opportunity to thank all colleagues who have engaged with us on this, including my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), who is not in her place today. She has been instrumental in helping us to formulate these ideas in regard to national security and in particular our commitment to the national security unit for procurement.
The Government are taking national security extremely seriously, as the Bill and the amendments just mentioned make clear. Concerns have been expressed in the House regarding the use of surveillance equipment provided by entities subject to the national intelligence law of the People’s Republic of China, the risks of which we fully understand. I take this opportunity to remind the House that, in November, the Government published a written ministerial statement asking Departments to consider the removal of visual surveillance equipment from Government sensitive sites and to cease any future procurement of such equipment.
Today, we are going further. I commit to this House that, within six months of the Bill’s Royal Assent, the Government will set out the timeline for the removal of surveillance equipment supplied by companies subject to the national intelligence law of China from sensitive sites. I make it clear that we are taking firm and decisive action on this important matter and that we will be held to account for that action. That is why we will provide a clear plan for delivering on it, adhering to the timeline requested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green. I hope that addresses his and other Members’ wishes that the Government take appropriate action.
If I may, I will address two final points. First, I thank each of the devolved Administrations for their constructive engagement during the drafting and passage of the Bill. I am pleased that the Senedd and the Scottish Parliament have agreed to the procurement aspects of the Bill, which are the vast majority of the clauses. However, despite our best efforts and several amendments, we have been unable to secure full legislative consent motions for the concurrent powers in the Bill relating to the implementation of international obligations. That is disappointing, but not unexpected, given that it is consistent with the position taken by the Scottish and Welsh Governments on the recent Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Act 2023.
I reassure the House that, as with current practice, we will continue to engage and consult with the devolved Administrations if they choose not to legislate for themselves in implementing the UK’s international obligations, in so far as they relate to areas of devolved competence. In the absence of a Northern Ireland Executive, a legislative consent motion for Northern Ireland was not possible. However, the permanent secretary for the Northern Ireland Department of Finance has written to the permanent secretary of the Cabinet Office to welcome the Bill as drafted and the close working relationship that has developed between officials.
Secondly, I take the opportunity to clarify the rules for private utilities where they have been directly awarded rights, for example, through a directly awarded contract at the request of the Department for Transport. Private utilities are within the scope of the Bill only where they have been granted a special or exclusive right to carry out a utility activity, effectively creating a monopoly situation. Clause 6(4) clarifies that the right is not special or exclusive where the right is granted following a competitive tendering procedure under the Bill or otherwise on the basis of a transparent procedure and non-discriminatory criteria. That has the effect, for example, that, if a contract for a utility activity with an incumbent supplier is renewed or replaced without competition, the supplier will have been granted a special or exclusive right. The supplier would therefore be classed as a private utility under the Bill. An example would be where an incumbent train operating company awarded a contract following competition has been directly awarded a new contract under DFT legislation.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
Three years ago, in the aftermath of the covid-19 pandemic, vital frontline staff across our NHS were struggling against dangerously low stocks of personal protective equipment. We all heard the stories of frontline workers in the early stages of the pandemic. These stories show us the impact of not procuring adequate reserves for a pandemic such as covid-19, and they show us why we need the right culture to rapidly respond to emergency procurement demands whenever they may show. Sadly, what we saw during the pandemic did not live up to standards. What followed, with the horror stories of frontline workers in the early stages of 2020, was a case study in wasteful and inefficient emergency procurement.
In January, the National Audit Office found that nearly £15 billion was wasted on unused covid supplies. That is £15 billion that could be going towards tens of thousands of full-time nursery places. It is £15 billion that could be going towards clearing the backlog in our NHS. It is £15 billion that could hand every single person in this country £220 and still have change left over. Instead, the incompetence we saw from this Government cost this country a fortune. In fact, the Government’s record keeping was so flawed that the Public Accounts Committee’s July 2022 report on the awarding of contracts to Randox during the pandemic stated it was
“impossible to have confidence that all its contracts with Randox were awarded properly.”
It is not just incompetence that costs the country. During the pandemic, the Government created a VIP lane for those offering to provide PPE. The system was extremely useful for some suppliers, with the Public Accounts Committee finding that one in 10 suppliers coming through the high-priority lane were awarded a contract. That compares with just one in 100 for the ordinary lane. The Cabinet Office and the Department of Health and Social Care also accepted that leads that went through the high-priority lane were handled better. Who was in that lane?
In the Public Account Committee’s report on PPE procurement, it stated
“The British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing told us that their organisations did not have access to the high-priority lane, even though they were being contacted by, and therefore would have been able to put forward, credible leads based on the knowledge of their members. The British Medical Association also noted that suppliers which had contacted them, including suppliers trusted by doctors, tried the normal channels of reaching out to the Government but had ‘hit a brick wall’. Care England told us that it had similarly shared the details of potential suppliers but there had been no follow-through.”
Instead, those with contacts with Government Ministers and officials, MPs and Members of the House of Lords were given access to this VIP lane. That included PPE Medpro, a company set up only a few days before but—surprise, surprise—with links to a Tory politician, which was awarded more than £200 million of public money. In total, £3.4 billion of taxpayers’ money in the form of contracts went to Conservative donors and friends. At a time when we were asking people up and down the country to come outside and clap, the Tory Government were giving cash to their donors. The Bill must be used to ensure that that never happens again.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
I applaud what the hon. Member is saying about SMEs. She is absolutely right that it is important that we support the small business sector. However, she has tabled amendments that would favour the insourcing of public services. She seems to think that we should require the public sector to deliver public contracts, rather than SMEs. Which is it?
Florence Eshalomi
The hon. Member is absolutely right: those SMEs will work with local councils in a local area, and they know the local area. In some cases the contracts that are outsourced are not value for money. This is about ensuring that, in public contracts, public money is spent in the right way. If we are to lower the risks faced by SMEs seeking to enter the supply chain, it is vital that the measures in the Bill have an impact.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
One of the biggest problems during the pandemic, which came out of China and became a global pandemic, was the question of everybody scraping around trying to find PPE, most of which was manufactured in China. Is it therefore part of the hon. Lady’s argument that we should have strategic manufacturing of PPE—either here or certainly in democracies that we can trust—to which we get earlier access, or will we just leave it to be produced somewhere else?
Florence Eshalomi
I agree with some of the amendments the right hon. Member has tabled on the issue of China and national security. Throughout the Committee stage, we argued consistently for removing risks from countries with a high national security risk, but we have concerns about the approach of naming specific countries in the Bill. It is important that we work with the whole House to get the right framework. I urge the Minister to consider our amendment 17, which is a careful mechanism for assessing the impact of the new rules that he is championing.
Throughout the passage of the Bill, national security has been an issues of extreme interest to the House. On Second Reading, we heard a tour de force from the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), on national security. In Committee, I raised multiple concerns with the Minister about the place of national security as a discretionary exclusion ground and its role in the debarment system. I am pleased that the Minister was listening to all those points, and we welcome amendment 57 and similar Government amendments, which we believe will address many of the concerns raised in Committee. I welcome the amendments originally tabled by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton, which will establish a list of high-risk suppliers as part of the Bill. Our amendment 15 would exclude suppliers identified as a security threat from public contracts. Although that offers some benefits over alternative proposals, there is a balance, so we are not minded to press amendment 15 to a Division.
Procurement practices affect not only our services, but the many workers who rely on procurement-related roles for their jobs and livelihoods. Public money, and the jobs that will create, should not be given to those who treat their workers unfairly. Our amendment 18 would give contracting authorities the power to exclude suppliers that have significantly and repeatedly breached the rights of their staff. It would affect only those who have not taken self-cleansing measures to correct their conduct and the causes of breaches. The amendment would ensure that authorities have the right to turn away the worst offenders on workers’ rights, and would ensure that publicly funded jobs are protected jobs.
It can only be right that those seeking public contracts in the UK are transparent about where they pay their tax. The public would not expect their hard-earned money to go to those seeking not to pay into the system themselves, but a study from the Fair Tax Foundation found that, between 2014 and 2019, one in six public contracts were won by companies with links to tax havens. Our new clause 10 would mean that multinational companies bidding for large public contracts need to provide information about their tax arrangements in the UK. That would be open to the public and create greater transparency on how public money is spent. Amendment 16 would create a discretionary exclusion ground for suppliers that have violated UK sanctions or export controls, ensuring that authorities have the power to exclude from the procurement system those who continue to profit off businesses in places such as Russia. New clause 11 would require authorities to undertake a public interest test whenever deciding to outsource public services, to ensure that it truly offers value for money. Finally, new clause 14 would allow public authorities to choose not to buy goods or services from countries on the basis of their human rights records. That would give authorities the power to set clear policies, not to hand public funds to those committing atrocities around the world.
I pay tribute to members of the Committee for their engagement on this very long Bill. We have definitely shone a light on it, and had many discussions about paperclips. In particular, I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) and for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle), who embellished the Committee with a wealth of examples of procurement practices from their constituencies. I hope the Minister will listen to us on why additional amendments are important to strengthen the Procurement Bill in the interests of all taxpayers across the country, and I look forward to hearing from other Members.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I rise to speak to the amendment in my name and those of 26 others in the House of all parties.
The real issue here is the existence of a specific law in China that makes pretty much all companies in China, but particularly those involved in technology, a public risk in procurement to the United Kingdom. Article 7 of the People’s Republic of China national intelligence law 2017 states:
“Any organisation and citizen shall, in accordance with the law, support, provide assistance, and cooperate in national intelligence work, and guard the secrecy of any national intelligence work that they are aware of.”
In other words, under the Chinese national intelligence law, they must completely comply with all demands and requests for information in the business they are in, and deny they have done that to any other country or authority that asks. We have had Chinese companies coming to the House and lying to Select Committees about what they are doing, all saying that they have no obligations under the national intelligence law. They do have obligations under that law and they will lie for their country as a result.
We need to start by understanding the problems, and I thank my hon. and right hon. Friends on the Front Bench for having listened to the arguments and changed the terms, first by referencing the national intelligence law, which is very important, because many Departments will play fast and loose unless what they must do is made very clear. We have been encouraging the Government, who came out with views on Hikvision, Dahua and other companies supplying surveillance equipment to the UK, knowing that they are a surveillance risk not because they are cameras in a particular fashion but because what they glean is available completely to the Chinese authorities under the national security laws.
We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) about the small devices—a growing threat that I have not referenced but which also gets caught by the national intelligence law. China is leading in this technology, which is one way in which it can keep track of its own people, but they are now using it more broadly. I had a suspicion and heard that the cars that my hon. Friend was referencing were Downing Street cars. There is a very good chance that the Prime Minister and others may have been tracked by the Chinese Government without our knowledge.
We must therefore remember that first and foremost China poses a significant threat to us, our interests and the way we live our lives. Until we all agree and come to those terms, we simply cannot move on; that is the key. Government Departments and the Government have dragged their feet over this because we do not want to upset the Chinese—but it takes a lot to upset the Chinese because they carry on as before. The amendment is intended to get the Government to accept that we should reference the national intelligence law because that defines all Chinese business and companies and therefore they are a threat.
There are other Chinese companies that are a problem that will not be named, and surveillance cameras are part of this. I must confess that when my brother-in-law went around an area of a farm looking at the surveillance cameras, he spotted that they were Hikvision cameras—they are not listed in the contract because the contract provider is a UK organisation, but we discovered that they are everywhere.
Once I heard the news that the Government clearly wanted Departments to get rid of those cameras, I made a set of freedom of information requests to all Departments about whether they had cameras, where they were, whether they were on their buildings, and what plans they had to get rid of them, having spotted that a lot of Departments still had them, including the Ministry of Defence. All Departments—bar I think the Wales Office, which came clean and said it did not have any or was getting rid of them—claimed that, under section 24 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, they did not have to answer because it was a security risk. The security risk is having the cameras, not answering the damned question! Excuse my language, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is all about where the cameras are and what they are doing, and that is the point of the amendment.
I hope that Ministers will take this matter forward and tell Departments to stop obfuscating. If they are asked a direct question they should tell the honest truth and explain that under the new rules under the Bill they will be getting rid of those cameras, which is absolutely critical.
Oral Answers to Questions
Florence Eshalomi Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
Our civil servants are impartial, committed and hard-working professionals. They deserve our respect for keeping this country going during the pandemic. Instead, what we are getting from Ministers is unacceptable workplace behaviour and accusations of being responsible for Government failure. It is not civil servants who have put us through the Tory psychodrama and the disastrous Budget, so will the Minister take responsibility for the backlogs that constituents are facing up and down the country and stop shifting the blame on to hard-working civil servants?
Jeremy Quin
The hon. Lady will not find me criticising civil servants who are hard-working, who do their job, who are committed and who continue to provide tremendous expertise to our country, but I take issue with her earlier points. We take any allegations of bullying seriously, and we need to ensure that they are all followed up. I do not know if the same can be said of the Labour party—people in glass houses should not throw stones. I think there were more allegations even today about activity inside the Labour party. There was five years of antisemitism that was not addressed, and I do think the Labour party should sort out its own issues before trying to sort out the Government’s.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
The Government may offer warm words on SMEs, but small businesses need those opportunities to thrive. Let us look at the evidence to see whether those warm words are backed up. In Brentwood, SMEs missed out on £3 in every £4 of viable suitable Government contracts in 2022. In Hertsmere, they missed out on 79%. In Horsham, SMEs got less than 5% of suitable public money. That amounts to £8.6 million. The Tories may talk about being a party of small businesses, but this Government have had 13 years to help small businesses—why have they not?
Alex Burghart
I am very pleased that the hon. Lady has been paying attention in the Committee stage of the Procurement Bill, where she has heard that we have done a great deal of work to overhaul the archaic regime that the EU left us with. It is precisely because of that Bill that small businesses will get contract pipelines, a single digital platform, prompt payments and a single regime that reduces bureaucracy and administrative burdens. With transparency, simplicity and fairness, this Government are delivering for small and medium-sized enterprises.