Civil Service Impartiality

Debate between Jeremy Quin and Alex Cunningham

Monday 6th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Quin]

I very much agree that those questions need to be answered by Opposition Members.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

I do not know how familiar the Minister is with Matthew 7:3-5:

“How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?”.

Contrary to what the Minister says, this move is not without precedent. Lord Sassoon was a senior civil servant on the same grade as Sue Gray. He resigned in the same month that Lehman Brothers collapsed, only to join George Osborne as his economic adviser three weeks later. In time, he became a Tory Government Minister. Will the Minister confirm that, and correct the record?

[Jeremy Quin]

I regret to tell the hon. Gentleman that I cannot recall that appointment. There are other appointments that I can think of, but none where the individual concerned had such a prominent role in Government, and was at the centre of affairs in the Cabinet Office and, in this case, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. I understand why people inside this House and outside want to ensure that processes have been followed correctly.

Ministerial Appointments: Vetting and Managing Conflicts of Interest

Debate between Jeremy Quin and Alex Cunningham

Monday 23rd January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Quin]

It is a matter for individual Ministers to go through the proper process under the ministerial code, and that is what everyone does. It is a requirement under this Government, as it has been a requirement under all Governments. There is full disclosure in that process. The Minister needs to talk to his or her permanent secretary, and it is critical that no conflicts of interest or, indeed, perceived conflicts of interest are established.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

Will the inquiry confirm the nature of the agreement between the right hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) and HMRC?

[Jeremy Quin]

I have every confidence that my right hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon will be totally open with the independent adviser who will be producing a report for the Prime Minister so that the facts can be fully established.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jeremy Quin and Alex Cunningham

Thursday 8th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

13. What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to ensure value for money in public spending.

[The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Jeremy Quin)]

The Cabinet Office and His Majesty’s Treasury publish mandatory standards, such as the Green Book commercial standards, enforced through central controls and training. The Infrastructure and Projects Authority shapes the work of Government and, from last year, the Evaluation Task Force is helping to ensure value for money. In its first year, the taskforce advised 169 programmes covering £82 billion of spend.

[Alex Cunningham]

Under the Conservative Government’s crony approach to public spending, taxpayers’ money has been irresponsibly and unforgivably wasted. Some £9 billion was spent on PPE and written off, with £2.6 billion spent on items not suitable for the NHS. Does the Minister agree that the Prime Minister, who oversaw that waste when he was Chancellor, should not only hang his head in shame but go after the money and get it back?

[Jeremy Quin]

In the Cabinet Office, through the Public Sector Fraud Authority, we have an extremely effective body targeted at going after fraud where it happens. It is an unfortunate reality that any Government who do a lot are prey to fraudsters. We will always tackle and go after fraud, which is exactly what this Government are doing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

In response to my earlier question, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General said that they were focused on fraud and on taking action. How many police inquiries are ongoing into PPE contract fraud? When can we expect any of the big-time fraudsters to be brought to justice?

[Jeremy Quin]

I do not think I would be in a position to discuss police inquiries in this place, so I have nothing to say in response to the hon. Gentleman’s question.

Papers Relating to the Home Secretary

Debate between Jeremy Quin and Alex Cunningham

Tuesday 8th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Jeremy Quin)]

It is, as ever, a pleasure to reply to the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper). I was pleased to hear from the Chairwoman of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), that her Committee visited Manston today and saw, I assume, at first hand the improvements there. What a pity we are not discussing that today. What a pity we are not discussing the many pressing issues on matters of home affairs. What a pity that the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford did not choose to talk about policing and the matters that affect the people on the streets of this country. I know how disappointed my hon. and right hon. Friends in the Home Office will be that they have not had the opportunity to cross swords with her this afternoon. Instead, she has chosen to debate this motion—a motion for return. She ranged far and wide, touching on rumour and speculation but rarely on the specifics of the motion, and I was grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your guidance.

However, I am pleased with the debate. In the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), we heard that, somehow, a self-confessed error of judgment relating to an email not on an issue of national security represents exceptional circumstances, in the view of the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford, but that, in the last Government, the fact that this country was going to war did not represent exceptional circumstances, according to the right hon. Lady.

I would like to bring the debate back to the motion before the House. In her letter to the Home Affairs Committee on 31 October, the Home Secretary set out in considerable detail the circumstances and sequence of events that led to her resignation. She explained that she made “an error of judgment”. She recognised her mistake and took accountability for her actions. Her letter noted that the draft written ministerial statement

“did not contain any information relating to national security”.

As I set out to the House in response to the urgent question tabled by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford, the ministerial code allows for a range of sanctions in the event that a breach has occurred. In the light of the breach, the Home Secretary stepped down and her resignation was accepted by the then Prime Minister. The appointment of Ministers is a matter for the Prime Minister, in line with his role as the sovereign’s principal adviser. On appointing the Home Secretary to the Government, he received assurances from her. He was clear that she had recognised her error and had accepted the consequences. He considered that the matter was closed. He was pleased to be able to bring the Home Secretary, with her undoubted drive and commitment, back into Government and to be working with her to make our streets safer and to control our borders —matters that could have been discussed this afternoon.

I understand the desire to see inside the process of ministerial appointments and to make public discussions that may form part of any appointment. However, there are compelling and common-sense reasons why that desire should be resisted.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

Many a person who has gone through our court system will get 12 months’ probation. Why is six days good enough for the Home Secretary?

[Jeremy Quin]

I do not know the cases to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Every case must be looked at on a case-by-case basis. What we are dealing with here is a circumstance in which a breach of the ministerial code happened. The Home Secretary accepted that. She acknowledged her error; it will not happen again. The Prime Minister had to take a judgment on that basis, and he did.