Procurement Bill [Lords]

Debate between Jeremy Quin and Angela Rayner

Report stage
Tuesday 13th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)]

I start where the right hon. Member for Horsham (Jeremy Quin) left off, by saying thank you to all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken today, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) for her contributions throughout the stages of the Bill. I also thank the brilliant Clerks and the House staff, and everyone who has been involved and on hand to support every step of the Bill.

It has been a long and complex process, and I know the Cabinet Office has been very busy in recent weeks, so I welcome the opportunity to debate something of more substance today. Unfortunately, the substance of the Bill, while necessary, is a little bit of tinkering around the edges of a broken system. I understand the need for a new Procurement Bill, to consolidate the patchwork of former EU rules and to bring the spaghetti of procurement regulations into one place, but it seems this distracted Government are more concerned with the civil war than writing good legislation.

Britain faces huge economic challenges—challenges made worse by years of economic incompetence, a disastrous kamikaze Budget and a Government on the side of vested interests. Wages have flatlined, prosperity has turned to stagnation and Britain has the highest forecast inflation in the G7. Procurement is one of the biggest and most effective tools available to Government to drive up standards across the economy and create world-class, affordable and effective public services.

As the Minister said in his response, we are talking about £300 billion of public money a year, a third of public spending and more than the NHS budget. What we should be debating this evening is a bold new set of rules to direct investment to the places that need it most. We should be discussing how we can clear the pipes and flush out the system with transparency after years of cronyism and waste. We should be debating legislation that pumps money back into the pockets of local communities, creates decent jobs and skills in our towns and cities, and hands wealth back to the people who built Britain.

Instead, what we have before us today is a damp squib. This Bill fails to close the loopholes that saw obscene waste of taxpayers’ money through the VIP lane, it fails to mandate social value to secure investment in good British business, and it fails to create robust protections for workers. Labour recognises the need for a new procurement Bill, and for that reason we will not oppose this one, but surely we can do better than this.

This evening the Government chose to vote against a Labour amendment that would have blocked VIP lanes, for the third time. They have had three opportunities to show that they have learnt from the waste and the cronyism that we saw during the pandemic, and on all three occasions they have refused. In fact, loopholes included in this Bill will make it easier for Ministers to bypass existing transparency rules. The Tory VIP lane is at the heart of why we need a procurement Bill. It exposed the true weaknesses in the system and showed us why we desperately need a more agile and transparent procurement system.

[Jeremy Quin]

It is a bit late in our proceedings, but I really would encourage the right hon. Lady to read the Bill, even at this late stage.

[Angela Rayner]

I think the Minister knows full well that I have read the Bill, and it is a real shame that in the conversations that my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and I have had with him and his team, they have refused to help stop this loophole. The Tory cronyism on the VIP lane is still there in this legislation. The VIP lane enabled a shameful waste of taxpayers’ money and profiteering by unfit and unqualified providers, and as a result the Government have written off £10 billion of public funds spent on personal protective equipment that was unusable, overpriced or undelivered.

While I welcome the moves in the Bill to issue “transparency notices” before awarding a contract, these are just baby steps; they barely scratch the surface. We must see end-to-end transparency. And it is not just me who thinks that. The amendment that the Government voted down today is a proposal by the National Audit Office, a totally independent body calling for the Government to end their murky practices that saw taxpayers’ money wasted at eye-watering rates.

This Bill also gave us an opportunity to reimagine the way we spend public money in order to promote decent work across the economy, to reward businesses that treat their workers right, and to use procurement to raise the floor on working conditions for all. Any suppliers given taxpayers’ money should provide their workers with decent pay, respect, dignity and fairness, as well as access to a trade union. Economies across the world expect that from their employers. In France, Germany and the Netherlands, for example, more collective bargaining, stronger workers’ rights and a fair share of wealth lead to higher growth, productivity and staff retention. President Biden’s Government direct investment to companies with a track record of treating their workers with respect, so why can’t we?

But over the last 13 years, the Tories have failed to use the levers of government to drive up standards for working people. In fact, things have got worse. I am disappointed but not surprised that the Government today voted down our amendment, which would have held suppliers to account when they repeatedly abuse workers’ rights. Taxpayers do not expect their money to be handed to suppliers with a track record like that. They want to see their money going to suppliers who pay their staff properly and who uphold fair conditions, job security and union access. That is the bare minimum.

I also want to take this moment to welcome the Government’s last-minute amendments on national security. I could not help but recognise some of those amendments. I would also like to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), whom I worked closely with to highlight the need for change in managing the risk in procurement. I welcome the Minister’s recognition that the current system leaves the door open for foreign threats to enter our supply chain and for taxpayers’ money to be spent with no oversight on whether they are properly vetted. That said, I hope the Minister can tell us what criteria his Government will use to identify suppliers who pose a risk to national security, and I hope he will consider the inclusion of cyber-security criteria in that assessment.

In closing, I would like to once again thank all hon. and right hon. Members for their contributions today. While procurement might seem a dry topic, it is absolutely central to the way that our country works, and when Ministers abuse the procurement system, it is taxpayers who suffer. As we saw during the pandemic, the VIP lane for PPE contracts was a scandal of epic proportions that allowed the shameful waste of taxpayers’ money and inexcusable profiteering, yet instead of learning the lessons of this failure, this evening Ministers voted for a third time to protect the loophole that allows the VIP lanes to exist. The Government have a duty to learn the lessons from the pandemic and, quite frankly, Ministers have abdicated that duty here today. While the Tories are too distracted to govern, Labour in power would flush cronyism out of the system and protect taxpayers, to ensure that every pound is spent in the national interest.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

Energy Bill [Lords]: Ways and Means

Resolved,

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Energy Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise—

(1) the imposition, by virtue of the Act, of charges or payments under licences issued under the Gas Act 1986;

(2) the making of provision under the Act requiring electricity suppliers to make payments, or to provide financial collateral, to the Secretary of State;

(3) the making of provision under the Act in relation to income tax, corporation tax, capital gains tax, stamp duty, stamp duty reserve tax, stamp duty land tax or value added tax in connection with a transfer of property, rights or liabilities by a scheme under the Act.—(Andrew Bowie.)

Electronic Trade Documents Bill [Lords]: Second Reading

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order Nos. 59(3) and 90(5)), That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No. 63).

Electronic Trade Documents Bill [Lords] Committee

Ordered,

That the Electronic Trade Documents Bill [Lords] Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet.—(Robert Largan.)

Ministerial Code: Investigation of Potential Breach

Debate between Jeremy Quin and Angela Rayner

Tuesday 23rd May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the criteria for launching an investigation into a potential breach of the ministerial code.

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

The ministerial code sets out the standards of conduct expected of Ministers in how they discharge their duties. The code is the Prime Minister’s document, but Ministers are personally responsible for deciding how to act and conduct themselves in the light of the code and for justifying their actions and conduct to Parliament and the public. The Prime Minister is the ultimate judge of the standards of behaviour expected of a Minister and of the appropriate consequences of a breach of those standards. Ministers remain in office only for so long as they can retain the confidence of the Prime Minister.

The Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests is appointed by the Prime Minister to advise on matters relating to the ministerial code and, as hon. Members will be aware, that may include considering matters of ministerial conduct. The independent adviser has published terms of reference, which state that if

“there is an allegation about a breach of the Code, and the Prime Minister, having consulted the Cabinet Secretary, feels that it warrants further investigation, the Prime Minister may ask the Cabinet Office to investigate the facts of the case and/or refer the matter to the independent adviser on Ministers’ interests.”

With regard to the matter concerning the Home Secretary, which has been the subject of recent coverage, the Prime Minister made it clear to the House yesterday that he is receiving information on the issues raised. Since returning from the G7, the Prime Minister has met both the independent adviser and the Home Secretary and asked for further information. It is right that the Prime Minister, as the head of the Executive and the arbiter of the ministerial code, be allowed time to receive relevant information on this matter. Hon. Members will be updated on this in due course.

[Angela Rayner]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. This is an urgent matter, because our constituents expect those who make the rules to follow the rules, especially the Minister responsible for upholding the law. There are serious questions to answer following reports that the Home Secretary asked civil servants to organise a private speeding course. Will the Minister start by confirming whether the Home Secretary did or did not ask civil servants for help in this matter?

After days of dither and delay, and as the Minister just pointed out again, the Prime Minister still has not decided whether his ethics adviser should investigate. When can we expect to know what the Prime Minister is thinking on this matter? Was the Prime Minister made aware of the issue when he appointed the Home Secretary?

The ministerial code is clear that Ministers must not use their position for personal gain or ask civil servants to help them in a private matter. Does the Minister condone attempts to use the civil service for personal matters, or does he think that any potential breach of that principle should result in an investigation? Reports suggest that officials raised concerns about the Home Secretary’s conduct in emails sent to the Cabinet Office, with the full awareness of the permanent secretary. Officials are said to have been instructed to disregard the request. Was that the case, and if so, on what basis? Furthermore, if the Home Secretary did authorise her special adviser to tell journalists that there was no speeding penalty, that would surely be classified as a Minister asking officials to breach the civil service code. Does the Minister agree that that amounts to the breach of the ministerial code?

As the Minister knows, the Home Secretary already admitted to breaching the code by using personal emails to share sensitive Government information. How many strikes before she is out?

[Jeremy Quin]

The right hon. Lady has made a number of contentions there, and I will not get into speculation about the events in question. She will have heard the Prime Minister being clear yesterday that he was informed of the issue while on the service of the country at the G7 in Japan. He has returned from the G7 and is gathering information, but what we know of the Prime Minister is that he will deal with these issues properly and professionally. The first part of that is to gather the information required on which he can take a view, and that is what he is doing.

Civil Service Impartiality

Debate between Jeremy Quin and Angela Rayner

Monday 6th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

Thank you. Mr Speaker. As I was saying, after this question I will go back to my office to help people who are struggling with the cost of living, with getting an NHS dentist and with paying their energy bills. All of those things are the result of 13 years of this failed Conservative Administration. While they play games, we are getting on with tackling the real issues facing the country. When will they do the same?

[Jeremy Quin]

Having heard from the right hon. Lady, I see that she has clearly been advised that attack is the best form of defence. I quite understand why the Opposition feel in need of some more advisers and some new advisers, given her tone today.

I understand the dilemma faced by the Leader of the Opposition. Having looked inside his tent, I understand why he is reaching so far outside of it. After so many rebrands, I appreciate why the right hon. Lady and the Leader of the Opposition require someone who can do joined up. However, the Labour party talks about rules, transparency and standards in public life, and given all that constant talk it is time that it walked the walk. I ask the right hon. Lady to go away and think: why are the Opposition refusing to publish when they met with Sue Gray; why are they being evasive; and why can they not tell us what they discussed, where they met, and how often they met? Their refusal to do so prompts the question: exactly what is Labour trying to hide?

Many across the House have noticed that the Leader of the Opposition has a tendency to claim a self-righteous monopoly on morals, but there are now serious questions as to whether Labour, by acting fast and loose, undermined the rules and the impartiality of the civil service. Labour Members must ask themselves why the Leader of the Opposition covertly met a senior civil servant and why those meetings were not declared. They believe that ACOBA rules should be tightened, but why were the current ones not followed? It is incumbent on everyone across the House to uphold and preserve the integrity and the perceived impartiality of the civil service.

This is about trust, Mr Speaker, and it is the Labour party that risks damaging that trust with an offer of appointment. However, the Opposition can help restore that trust. They can do the right thing: they can publish the list of meetings between themselves and Sue Gray; they can publish who attended those meetings; and they can publish when they started speaking to Sue Gray. There is nothing in the ACOBA rules that stops them doing so today.

Ministerial Appointments: Vetting and Managing Conflicts of Interest

Debate between Jeremy Quin and Angela Rayner

Monday 23rd January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on his Department’s processes for vetting ministerial appointments and managing conflicts of interest.

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

I thank the right hon. Lady for her question, to which it is a pleasure to respond.

To start with ministerial appointments, appointments made to His Majesty’s Government are a matter solely for the Prime Minister in line with his constitutional position as the Sovereign’s principal adviser and the head of the Government. It is for the Prime Minister to recommend individuals for appointment. In considering potential appointments, the Prime Minister may receive advice from the civil service on matters of propriety and potential conflicts of interest. The civil service has no role in approving or vetoing appointments as appointments are a matter for the Prime Minister. It would not be appropriate for me to comment further on the advice that may be given during the appointments process.

It is critical that all Prime Ministers are able to receive advice in confidence. I would not want to do anything to erode that ability. Once an appointment is made, the process for the management of conflicts of interest and potential conflicts is clear and robust, and follows the processes set out in the ministerial code. It is the responsibility of all Ministers to ensure that no conflict arises, or could reasonably be perceived to arise, between their role and their private interests, financial or otherwise. That is ultimately incumbent on the individual and it is clearly set out in the ministerial code. Ministers should declare and manage potential conflicts of interest, working with their permanent secretary and the independent adviser on Ministers’ interests. They are under an ongoing duty to further declare relevant changes to their interests.

Hon. Members will be aware that the Prime Minister has appointed Sir Laurie Magnus as his independent adviser on Ministers’ interests. Sir Laurie will be taking forward the work on the declaration of Ministers’ interests in line with his published terms of reference. As the Prime Minister confirmed this morning, the independent adviser will also be conducting an investigation to establish the facts surrounding the matters concerning my right hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) that have been subject to media reports over the weekend. I know that Sir Laurie will bring integrity and rigour to the role of independent adviser and the outcome of his work will be made public in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Rayner]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. We may have a carousel of Ministers, but it is the same old excuses every single time. Reports that the then Chancellor of the Exchequer agreed a settlement with HMRC, including a penalty, raise serious concerns about not just that case but standards in this entire Government. Can the Minister tell us if the vetting process raised flags to the former Prime Minister about the original appointment and when exactly did the current Prime Minister know? Does he know if and how this conflict of interest was managed, and why was it kept secret? Is there no system in place to prevent a person being actively investigated for unpaid tax from being appointed to run the UK’s tax system? Maybe it is that absurd that no one would ever think it would happen. While we understand the confidentiality of the honours process, surely where a serving Minister is blocked, there is an overwhelming case for sounding the alarm. So did that happen and where is the report? If not, why is there a lower bar to get into this Cabinet than there is to get a knighthood?

No. 10 apparently still does not know if other Ministers are in dispute over their own taxes, so what is the Prime Minister doing about it? Last week, he told the House that all questions had been answered and he was told there were no outstanding issues, yet now the independent adviser is investigating. So will he publish the terms of reference, and why does the Prime Minister need an adviser to tell him that this conduct is unethical? If this is not a breach of the ministerial code, surely the code itself is wrong and it is the Prime Minister’s job to fix it.

If the Prime Minister came clean about what he knew and when, and took responsibility for the conduct of his own Cabinet, would we need yet another investigation into another member of his top team? Even now, No. 10 says that the party chair retains the Prime Minister’s full confidence. How can the Prime Minister claim to deliver the integrity, professionalism and accountability that he promised while his Conservative party chair still sits in his Cabinet?

[Jeremy Quin]

We follow a proper process under the ministerial code. Interests are required to be declared. They are required to be shared through the ministerial code process and discussed with permanent secretaries. I am absolutely confident that the usual process will have been followed in the appointment process by this Prime Minister for my right hon. Friend the Member for Stratford- on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi). If there are issues to be raised in respect of historic activities, as was suggested by the weekend’s press, that is a matter for the independent adviser to look at. The summary of his findings will be published in due course. Integrity and accountability are critical, as is professionalism, and the Government will wait and hear the facts before taking decisions based on those facts. The right hon. Lady would do well to do the same.

Procurement Bill [Lords]

Debate between Jeremy Quin and Angela Rayner

2nd reading
Monday 9th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. As he says, using public money to make, buy and sell more in Britain can also be achieved through our defence spending and by spending on steel and vital infrastructure in the UK. As the party of working people and trade unions, we in Labour know that, when done well, defence procurement strengthens our UK economy and our UK sovereignty, but this Bill fails to direct British defence investment first to British business, with no higher bar set for any decision to buy abroad.

Labour wants to see our equipment designed and built here. That means our national assets, such as the steel industry, our shipyards and our aerospace. That is fundamental for Labour, and we will amend the legislation to secure it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), the shadow Defence Secretary, made it clear that that is a priority for Labour, when he announced at our conference in September that Labour in government would build the navy’s new support ships in Britain.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) mentioned, the Conservatives announced that the £1.6 billion fleet solid support ship contract would be awarded to Spanish shipbuilders, meaning at least 40% of the value of the work will go abroad. Ministers have confirmed that there is no limit on how many jobs will be created in Spain and that there are no targets for UK steel in the contract. That is frankly a disgrace and a wasted opportunity, when the use of procurement could have been a force for strengthening our UK economy and our security at the same time.

I hope the Minister is listening and will openly work constructively with me to amend the Bill and ensure that British defence investment is directed first to British industry, as well as carrying out a review of the contract for fleet solid support ships.

[Jeremy Quin]

I hope the right hon. Lady will welcome the fact that, as a result of the FFS award, we will see revitalisation of Harland & Wolff, we will have additional shipyard capacity and we will be rebuilding the British shipyards left in a dreadful state after the last Labour Government. We are seizing opportunities. It is unfortunate that we have to reskill some of our workers and that we have to use opportunities coming from abroad to ensure that we recreate another yard in the UK as well as supporting Appledore, but it is important that we have the right equipment for our armed forces and that defence can seize those opportunities.

[Angela Rayner]

I thank the Minister for that contribution, but he should put it in the Bill. He should work with us to ensure that we build in Britain and support British industry and the steel industry. We discussed earlier today the difficulties that UK industries face, and I believe this Bill does not go far enough to support our industries. I want to see that support and I will happily work with the Minister on that.

The Minister has also pledged to use this Bill to make procurement quicker, simpler and more transparent. We need look no further than the pandemic for the clearest example of why we desperately need a more agile and transparent procurement system. The Tory VIP lane exposed the true weakness in the system, enabling the shameful waste of taxpayers’ money and profiteering by unfit and unqualified providers.

As a result, the Government have written off £10 billion of public funds spent on unusable, overpriced and undelivered personal protective equipment. More than £700,000 a day of taxpayers’ cash is currently being used to store unused gloves, goggles and gowns—enough to pay for 75,000 spaces in after-school clubs or 19,000 places in full-time nursery care.

I am still waiting to see whether the Government will respond to our Humble Address and come clean about the murky case of PPE Medpro, which saw £203 million handed to a company with links to a Tory politician. Will the Minister use this opportunity to confirm whether his Government are still procuring PPE or other goods using the emergency rules enacted during the pandemic?

There is no doubt the pandemic presented a unique situation, placing huge strains on our procurement processes but, while all countries faced similar pressures and shortages, many countries conducted their emergency procurement in a far more open, effective and cost-efficient manner. The Government must learn the lessons of those mistakes, and what better opportunity than within this Procurement Bill?

I wait with anticipation to see how the Government might go about shutting down the VIP lanes, tightening the leash on Ministers’ freedom to award contracts directly and hard-wiring transparency into the system. Instead of straining every sinew to root out waste and cronyism, the Minister is pushing a Procurement Bill that would allow the same mess to happen all over again—handing more power over direct awards to Ministers, not less. I am sure the Tory party’s cronies watching these proceedings will be rubbing their hands with glee at a Bill that puts their VIP fast lane on to the British statute book. I am also sure that former Ministers from previous Conservative Governments, who grasped the opportunity to do the right thing and clean up politics after years of sleaze, will be disappointed by this Bill.

[Angela Rayner]

Yes. Clause 41 allows Ministers to use urgency as a new justification for granting direct awards—directly allowing the VIP lane yet again. I ask the hon. Gentleman to look at the Bill and at exactly what that would mean for the future of our procurement. I am sure Government Members, including Ministers, will be disgusted at the billions of pounds that we have seen wasted through that process. I am willing to work with the Government to identify and close those loopholes.

[Jeremy Quin]

If life and public safety are at risk, does the right hon. Lady really think that there should not be an urgent procurement procedure—particularly one approved by this House—in that situation?

School Funding

Debate between Jeremy Quin and Angela Rayner

Wednesday 25th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)]

rose—

[Angela Rayner]

I will make a bit more progress.

What requests has the Secretary of State received from local authorities that cash cuts hitting face their schools and what has his response been? How much additional funding would be needed to meet the shortfall? That is all we are asking for in the motion. We are not asking the Secretary of State to match Labour’s commitment to increase per pupil funding each and every year to restore the funding lost since 2015. We are asking only that he is true to what he has promised in this House and ensures that not a single school faces a cash-terms cut next year.

Luckily for the Secretary of State, the Chancellor has given schools across the country the same guarantee. Will he give us the commitment here today that he will go to the Chancellor and ask for the funding to meet that guarantee? Even he has to acknowledge the reality.