Government Procurement Strategy
Judith Cummins Excerpts(1 week, 5 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
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.
Pension Schemes
Judith Cummins Excerpts(1 week, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
I wish to provide the House with an important update on key pension, contractual and commercial decisions.
The security and dignity of those who have dedicated their careers to our public services are not negotiable, and they deserve a pension service that is reliable, efficient and secure. For those principles to be more than just words, they need to be underpinned by rigorous accountability and a refusal to accept second best. We recognise that for our public servants, these services are the foundation of their financial security. When the standards they deserve are not upheld, the Government will not hesitate to act decisively to protect their interests. It is in that context that I want to give the first update to the House on the Royal Mail statutory pension scheme.
Following a failure to meet critical transition milestones and a lack of confidence in Capita’s ability to implement and transition to the new operating model in a timely fashion, I am announcing today that I have terminated the new Royal Mail statutory pension scheme contract with Capita. Capita had an 18-month planning window to prepare for the transition. It failed to deliver numerous milestones, including a failure to implement the required IT automation. The Cabinet Office repeatedly flagged delays in transition milestones and that IT automation, ultimately issuing formal correspondence to reaffirm the mandatory requirements. To ensure members are protected, we will ensure continuity of the existing contract, but let the message be clear: I will not and we will not tolerate delivery failure from contracted partners. Public services require high-quality delivery, and public money should not be used to fund performance that falls short of the standards we expect.
I also want to address problems in the administration of the civil service pension scheme. The transition process from the previous provider, MyCSP, was not satisfactory. We are investigating the respective liabilities for those failures as between Capita and MyCSP. Given the criticality of these services, the Cabinet Office permanent secretary and I discussed transition with the chief executive officer of Capita. We sought and were given explicit personal assurances that the transition would be handled with the utmost care and that any backlogs would be managed effectively. I am sorry to say that those assurances have not been met.
It is clear in any event that the delivery of the service to civil servants since the transfer on 1 December last year has fallen far short of the required standard. The delays that civil servants have faced in accessing their civil service pensions are unacceptable, especially in view of their many years of dedicated public service. That is why I established a specialist pensions recovery taskforce, led by the second permanent secretary at His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, Angela MacDonald, to take strategic oversight of the scheme’s management. That intervention, which includes a circa 140-person Government surge team to bolster operational capacity, is delivering results, including helping Capita to clear 15,000 inherited unread emails. Telephony wait times that averaged more than 90 minutes earlier this year have been successfully brought down to an average of under two minutes.
The stories we have heard of members missing mortgage payments and falling into hardship are distressing and entirely unacceptable. No one should have to face such financial anxiety after a lifetime of dedicated public service. That is why I took immediate action to ensure that no member was left to face these challenges alone while these service issues are being resolved. To mitigate the impact on those most affected, we have already provided more than £7.2 million in interest-free transitional support loans to more than 1,300 members. We are proactively driving the uptake of those loans to ensure that no member in need of support is missed, and I encourage all hon. and right hon. Members to ask their eligible constituents to reach out to their civil service employers for these loans, so that we can provide the vital support they deserve.
I can tell the House that Capita was explicitly instructed in July 2025 to prepare for the volumes it is now seeing. It knew the scale of the challenge, but failed to deliver the IT automation and portal functionality required when the service went live. The result, I am afraid to say, is a backlog of around 24,000 outstanding pension quotations. There is also a backlog of more than 1,500 open MP complaints. That is totally unacceptable. I have instructed officials to speak to Capita about how we can ensure that MP correspondence is dealt with quickly and efficiently, noting the importance of the fact that Members across the House were speaking up for their constituents. These are not just numbers on a spreadsheet; they represent thousands of individuals who are unable to plan for their futures or retire with dignity.
Service delivery is about more than just speed; it is also about the absolute security of member data. The breach we saw on 30 March, which saw personal information compromised on the pension portal, represents a fundamental failure in data protection. To be clear with the House, I will not tolerate these lapses. The Cabinet Office has formally notified the Information Commissioner’s Office of this breach, and we have written formally to the chief executive officer of Capita to demand a full technical account of this failure and a guarantee that it will not happen again.
Across the civil service pension scheme, we have taken direct action on all commercial levers. We are withholding milestone payments where deliverables have not been met, and we reserve every right to take further formal action. The Cabinet Office has mandated a clear recovery target on service levels. Capita must clear all inherited arrears by the end of this month and restore service levels to standard, contractually required levels by the end of June this year. We will continue to use every commercial lever at our disposal to ensure that these standards are met.
The security and dignity of all those who have dedicated their careers to our civil service and the Royal Mail are not negotiable. They deserve a pension service that is reliable, efficient and secure. We will continue to use every lever at our disposal to ensure that those standards are met and that members receive the service they have earned. I commend this statement to the House.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend can rest assured that I have interrogated officials on the situation that I inherited. On the point about assurances and promises not being met, I think the House can say today that when assurances are not met, I take decisive action, including commercial action. My hon. Friend will have seen that with regard to the Royal Mail statutory pension scheme, but also in our withholding milestone payments from Capita. He talked about whether we are looking at insourcing more things. That clearly is the Government’s pledge, and our policy going forward. With regard to the Royal Mail statutory pension scheme, we will look at a range of options in both those categories to ensure that we get the very best possible service for those who deserve it and rely on it.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
I thank the Minister for his statement. We have learned today that this contract was awarded two and a half years ago. Capita had two and a half years to prepare for taking on the administration of the civil service scheme. As has been mentioned, the Public Accounts Committee warned in October that Capita was not ready, yet it took on the contract regardless on 1 December. Today we learned also that the Government have terminated another Capita contract, for the Royal Mail pension scheme.
My constituents would like answers to the following questions. How many people on the civil service pension scheme, as of now, have not received payments that they should have had? Why should taxpayers be paying for the surge in His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs staff? A hundred and forty staff have come in to sort this out. Surely Capita should be paying for its incompetence. What is the timeline for Capita to clear up all inherited arrears, and is it prioritising hardship and bereavement cases? With regard to the Royal Mail pension scheme, now that Capita has been terminated, what is the plan?
Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment
Judith Cummins Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I am going to try to get more Members in to speak, so I am reducing the informal time limit to four minutes.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. The Minister will be called at 5 pm precisely, so with the remaining time, I call Jim Allister.
Antisemitic Attacks
Judith Cummins Excerpts(2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Before I call the Minister to make a statement on recent antisemitic attacks, I should inform the House that in some cases, charges have been brought. Those cases, including the attacks on the Hatzola community ambulance services and at the Manchester synagogue, are therefore sub judice. In respect of more recent incidents in Kenton and Finchley, arrests have been made but charges have not yet been brought. I remind hon. Members that they should not refer to the details of any specific cases currently before the courts, and that they should exercise caution with respect to any specific cases that might subsequently come before the courts, in order not to prejudice those proceedings.
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
With permission, I will make a statement about the appalling incidents targeting British Jews and opponents of the Iranian regime over recent days. I will begin with the facts. Counter-terrorism police have confirmed that they are investigating a series of arson attacks and incidents that have occurred in London over recent days. These include an arson attack at a synagogue in Finchley on Wednesday 15 April; a suspected arson attack targeting premises in Hendon linked to a Jewish charity on Friday 17 April; a suspected arson attack targeting a synagogue in Harrow on the evening of Saturday 18 April; and a further incident in the early hours of yesterday morning outside residential premises in Finchley and opposite a synagogue.
These events follow the arson attack on a volunteer-led ambulance service run by the Jewish community in Golders Green on 23 March. Last week, there was also an attempted arson attack on a Persian-language media organisation that has previously been the target of serious threats linked to the Iranian regime and its proxies. Eight arrests have now been made in connection with that incident, and four people have been charged. Jewish communities across the UK will be distressed and dismayed by these abhorrent attacks, and I know that I speak for hon. Members from right across the House when I say that there is no place in British life for antisemitism. Attacks on British Jews are attacks on all of us, and we will do whatever it takes to stop the cowards and thugs who seek to intimidate our Jewish communities.
The police response over the weekend has been decisive. Fifteen arrests have already been made. In addition, a range of capabilities have been deployed to deter potential attackers and to reassure communities. Over the weekend, the Metropolitan police significantly increased the number of officers in and around north-west London. Uniformed and plain-clothes officers have maintained a strong presence around Barnet, and additional stop-and-search powers have been introduced across the borough. Response vehicles and Counter Terrorism Policing resources have been deployed, alongside local policing, to respond to potential threats.
To ensure the police response is a sustainable one, the Government have already committed an additional £5 million for this financial year to support the deployment of specialist officers across the country to support vulnerable communities under Project Servator. That is in addition to the record £73.4 million annual funding for protective security at Jewish, Muslim and other faith sites.
This morning, I visited Finchley Reform synagogue with the deputy commissioner and the local MP, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Sarah Sackman). I met community leaders and saw at first hand the strengthened police presence and the resilience of those affected, and I reaffirmed our commitment to protect all those who have been targeted.
The Government’s commitment to supporting British Jews is an enduring one. We are taking firm steps to root out antisemitism wherever it appears across public life—from our public services to our universities, our charities and beyond. We are backing up our words with action. This includes launching an urgent review of antisemitism in the NHS, introducing mandatory training, and investing £7 million to tackle antisemitism in schools, colleges and universities. This is a whole of society effort, grounded in close engagement with Jewish communities.
We are determined to tackle the issues that have a daily impact on the lives of our Jewish communities. An amendment to existing powers will allow the police to deal with repeat protests by taking into account the cumulative effect of protest activity, and the Home Secretary has asked Lord Macdonald to undertake a review of public order laws to ensure people can go about their lives without fear of intimidation.
The Government have set out our vision for a fair, tolerant and decent country with the recent publication of “Protecting What Matters”, our action plan to tackle threats to social cohesion and counter the scourge of extremism. The plan makes significant spending commitments, including £800 million to expand the Pride in Place programme to 40 new neighbourhoods, plus new investment in community resilience, schools linking and local media. This vital effort requires us to work collectively across Government and with operational partners, and it will be driven forward by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government.
Furthermore, we are actively protecting Persian language media organisations that are at risk. This includes tailored security advice and cyber-protection through to armed police protection where necessary. We have already seen a number of charges and convictions of those seeking to harm journalists in the UK. Through the implementation of the National Security Act 2023 and other means, we are making the United Kingdom an even harder operating target for hostile actors.
Hon. Members will be aware that a group calling itself Ashab al-Yamin—the Islamic Movement of the Companions of the Right—has claimed responsibility for a number of these incidents. It has also claimed responsibility for attacks across Europe over recent months targeting Jewish and Israeli interests. I am aware of the public speculation linking that group to the Iranian state. Given that police investigations are ongoing, it would not be appropriate to comment on who may ultimately be behind these specific incidents, but more generally, we have held and will continue to hold Iran to account for its hostile acts.
Let me be absolutely clear: whether linked to Iran or to any other source, we will never tolerate hostile activity on British soil. Alongside the police and our world-leading security and intelligence agencies, we will do what is necessary to keep our citizens safe. On those criminal proxies used by states to do their dirty work, we will continue to ensure that their actions are met with the full weight of the law, as we saw with the conviction of the Chechen-born Austrian national who was imprisoned in 2023 for conducting surveillance on Iran International’s UK headquarters.
We have already seen the first convictions under the National Security Act for assisting a foreign intelligence service, including that of Dylan Earl, who in October received a sentence of 17 years for masterminding an arson campaign for Russia’s Wagner Group. To anyone tempted by offers of financial reward from foreign states to conduct hostile acts against the UK, my advice and my message is unambiguous: “You will be discovered and the consequences will be severe. Turning a blind eye or pleading ignorance is no defence.”
Antisemitism has existed in its many poisonous forms for centuries, but there is no doubt that we find ourselves at a critical juncture as fellow members of our society feel forced in some cases to live a smaller Jewish life. Our response must be unflinching, and I assure the House that under this Government it always will be. We will work relentlessly to ensure that antisemites and those who threaten the Jewish community here have nowhere to hide, and to show British Jews that we stand with them and will do everything in our power to keep them safe. I commend this statement to the House.
Dan Jarvis
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for the assiduous representation of his constituents and his constituency. The threats he describes are abhorrent and completely unacceptable. The notion that some members of our Jewish communities might be forced to live less Jewish lives is totally unacceptable. It is the Government’s responsibility to ensure that our response is proportionate to that threat. Along with ministerial colleagues in the Department, we have been in constant contact with the Metropolitan police over the past few days. I met Deputy Commissioner Matt Jukes this morning to look at what more we can do to ensure that the police have the resources they need.
I want to take this opportunity to thank the police for their work in recent times, which has been an impressive effort. They have stepped up to the plate and their response has been impressive, but we need to ensure that, collectively, we have the resources in place to continue that for as long as is necessary, to provide the reassurance required in constituencies such as the one that my hon. Friend is proud to represent. I give him an assurance of the seriousness with which we take this matter and I would be very happy to discuss it with him further.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I want to extend my sympathies to the Jewish community, who will understandably be worried about the disturbing uptick in violence against their community across Britain.
The series of arson attacks on Jewish sites in recent days is an abhorrent trend. The pattern of attacks on Britain’s Jews is clear to see. Without serious intervention, it is only a matter of time before we see another attack like that seen in Manchester last year. We are grateful to hear the Minister’s words today on the action being taken. We must recognise that we have a huge antisemitism problem in this country. We in this House must re-state that again and again until the problem has been stamped out. But that is not enough; the political system must also take action to tackle its root causes.
Earlier today, I met groups representing British Jews, including the Community Security Trust. They told me that British Jews are feeling extremely vulnerable, with some questioning their long-term security in this country. That such sentiment is held by any minority group in Britain in 2026 must give this House pause for thought. That the sentiment is held by the Jewish community, given the centuries of persecution they have suffered, is a tragedy.
A group called Ashab al-Yamin has claimed responsibility for a number of attacks, and others across Europe. What are Ministers doing with our European partners to tackle the cross-country and cross-continent threat that this organisation and others pose? Given the potential links with the IRGC, will the Minister act swiftly to proscribe it? Does he accept that, if those links are substantiated, proscription would be more likely to deliver justice for the Jewish community?
We know that hostile foreign states sometimes try to recruit individuals online to carry out these kinds of attacks on British people. There are rumours that social media has been the recruitment tool used. Does the Minister know what the social media companies are doing to identify, monitor and clamp down on that practice? What are Ministers doing to ensure that social media companies themselves are taking action?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has raised her concerns diligently with me on a number of occasions. I had the privilege recently of visiting JW3, in her constituency, which is a truly inspiring place. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Raymond, the chief executive officer, and to all the staff and volunteers for the incredibly important work that they do. I know it is hugely appreciated in my hon. Friend’s community.
The threat that my hon. Friend describes is totally unacceptable, and I can give her an absolute assurance to take back to her constituents of how seriously we take that threat. I also assure her that we will bring forward and use all the tools at our disposal. There has been a lot of commentary about proscribing the IRGC, and I completely understand why. She will understand that the Government have made a commitment to bring forward a legislative tool that was recommended by Jonathan Hall. It was this Government’s view that we did not have the appropriate legislative mechanism to proscribe a state-backed entity, which is why we have made a commitment to bring forward that particular tool. However, she should be assured that we will not wait for that particular legislative tool to do everything necessary to combat and counter the work of the IRGC. I set out the work we are doing to counter the threat from Iran a moment ago, and I hope that provides some assurance to her and to her constituents.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I am sure that everyone in this House will have heard stories from friends and constituents who are unable to enjoy a full Jewish life in the way that they should. The Minister is right that this is not just about putting in place more police and security, but about driving out the root cause of antisemitism. In this case, it does seem that the attacks are driven by foreign state actors, so I must agree with the calls for the proscription of the IRGC. This is something that the Government must now look at urgently.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
The hate-filled attack on the Kenton synagogue in my constituency is the latest in the series of disgusting attacks on Jewish buildings that the Minister outlined. But these are more than attacks on buildings; they are calculated attacks on the whole Jewish community, designed to destabilise and instil widespread fear. This is the very definition of terrorism.
I am grateful to the police for their swift response and the arrests that they have made in relation to some of the attacks, but I believe it is vital that the Government and the Met treat these as terrorist attacks, not simply as criminal damage. I would also ask that the Home Office, and perhaps the Home Affairs Committee, examines the involvement of foreign actors and the ease with which they are able to launch such attacks. For too long, London has been regarded by some hostile regimes as a safe base from which to operate and a place where money can be laundered. That British Jewry lives under the dark shadow of antisemitic hatred is something that, sadly, we have all come to understand but must never come to accept.
I pay tribute to the work of the CST and the security personnel at Kenton, who are always there to greet those of us who visit to ensure the safety of us and the whole congregation. In the London borough of Brent, we like to pride ourselves on the multicultural nature of our community and the harmony between all those from different faiths and cultural backgrounds, but good community relations have to be worked at—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I am sure that the hon. Member will ask his question.
Barry Gardiner
I ask the Minister to reinforce the fact that those good community relations are built not simply on the toleration of the views of others but on—
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend is right to raise the importance of community relations. He is also right that we have seen a number of clearly calculated attacks in recent times. He will understand that I do not want to get in front of a live and ongoing police operation, and it is not for me to categorise the nature of these attacks, but I again make the point that the Metropolitan police has arrested a number of people over the weekend. Should any further individuals be considering conducting any more attacks, I strongly advise them against doing so.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
Every community should feel safe. Does the Minister agree that we must condemn racism in all its forms—antisemitism, attacks on mosques, the abuse and intimidation directed at other minority ethnic communities, and attacks on asylum hotels by far-right terrorists? The Government’s approach appears inconsistent. Take the handling of visas for divisive far-right figures, such as Valentina Gomez. Her entry has now been blocked, but why was her visa approved in the first place, given the clear risk that she posed to the safety and cohesion of our—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Member will respect the Chair. I call the Minister.
Dan Jarvis
Every community must feel safe, and this Government will defend against racism wherever it raises its ugly head.
Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill
Judith Cummins Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The First Deputy Chairman
With this it will be convenient to consider clause 2 stand part.
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins, as I open the proceedings in the Committee of the whole House. I set out the core arguments for this Bill in my Second Reading speech, so I will not rehearse them again, although I have not matched the Teddy Taylor standard from 1975. However, for the benefit of the Committee, I will outline the two clauses and why they should stand part of the Bill.
Clause 1 amends paragraph 2 of part V of schedule 1 to the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975, which determines the maximum number of salaries that may be paid to certain ministerial office holders. Sub-paragraph (a) replaces the previous provision for 21 salaries at Secretary of State rank with a new provision for 22 salaries, sub-paragraph (b) replaces the previous provision for 50 salaries at Secretary of State rank and Minister of State rank with a new provision for 54 salaries, and sub-paragraph (c) replaces the previous provision for 83 salaries at Secretary of State rank, Minister of State rank and Parliamentary Secretary rank with a new provision of 94 salaries. This increases the total number of ministerial salaries available by 11. As I have said, the new limits are cumulative, meaning that the Prime Minister has the discretion to allocate salaries to a large number of Ministers at more junior ranks within those limits, if so desired.
Clause 2 sets out the extent, commencement and short title of the Bill. The Bill extends to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Of course, the Bill comes into force on Royal Assent. I very much look forward to the rest of the debate and seeing the Bill on the statute book soon.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
I have just a few short remarks. First, it would be helpful if the Minister set out how the Government have come to the totals that they have come to: why one, four and nine in total? Why not fewer, and why not more? Secondly, I did not quite get the Dispatch Box commitment I was looking for that this would mark an end to unpaid ministerial posts in this Government. [Interruption.] There is a little bit of a debate on the Government Front Bench about whether that commitment was made, but if the Paymaster General would be crystal clear, we can all go home happy.
Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill
Judith Cummins 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 Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
I may be at risk of making myself fantastically unpopular, but I think I can do so having no prospect whatsoever of reaching ministerial office again. Although I am perfectly willing to admit that the previous Government did not do this, does the Paymaster General agree that a Government will at some point have to reconsider the constant freezing of the ministerial salary? It has to increase, or we will get to the point of there being no meaningful reward for ministerial office, which I think could have a detrimental impact on the calibre of people we can attract over the long term. He is being very bold on this, so why not be bold with ministerial salaries?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I remind the House that what we are discussing—and what is in scope—is the number of ministerial appointments, not the salaries of Ministers.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
If ever Ministers were looking for a trade union leader, we have found one in the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden). Having already held very high office and been Deputy Prime Minister, he should perhaps worry less about future ambitions.
Sir Gavin Williamson
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. There is a disconnect between all the priorities and all the issues around the world and our wanting to pass legislation to create more ministerial offices.
I also understand and appreciate the challenges that the Prime Minister will face. I am sympathetic to his position, because he will be constantly badgered to make more Ministers, with more people wanting patronage and elevation. As my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) has pointed out, there is no upper limit to the number of Ministers, so if we are in this House in 10 years’ time, we will be having a debate about how there are another 15 Ministers who are unpaid. The Government Minister will be at the Dispatch Box, possibly trying to defend the idea of paying even more Ministers. We will have a creep, creep, creep of patronage, with ever more people going on to the Government payroll. I feel, and I fear, that that may weaken this House.
Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address
Judith Cummins Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Before we come to the urgent question on the Government’s response to the Humble Address, I would like to remind the House that Peter Mandelson is the subject of an ongoing police investigation. However, no charges have been brought. The sub judice resolution, therefore, does not currently apply. In that context, it is up to Ministers how they reply, but the House’s rules do not prevent them from answering fully. None the less, I know that the House would not wish to do anything that risked prejudicing the investigation, so I gently say to Members that it would be helpful to exercise a degree of restraint in referencing the specific matters under investigation.
Darren Jones
I can confirm that any documents that are within the scope of the Humble Address and refer to communications between Ministers and others and Peter Mandelson are part of the disclosure process currently being undertaken by the Government.
Gregory Stafford
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—and I apologise for not being able to give you notice of it. The ministerial code clearly states that Ministers must provide accurate information to this House. Under the duty of truthfulness, it states that Ministers are required to
“be as open as possible with Parliament”
and maintain high standards of accountability. That is not just in what they say, but what they fail to say. I know that you do not enforce the ministerial code, Madam Deputy Speaker, but would you expect a Minister who has misled the House by omission to return to the House to correct the record?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. While the occupant of the Chair is not responsible for Ministers’ words, I would expect any Minister to return to the House to correct omission, although that is a matter for those on the Treasury Bench and not for the Chair.
Extreme Climate and Weather Events: National Resilience
Judith Cummins Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dan Jarvis
I will make a little bit of progress. It also includes £30 million for coastal adaptation pilots in the East Riding of Yorkshire, Norfolk and Suffolk, and £104 billion in private investment for new water infrastructure.
I was privileged to meet community members and first responders shortly after Storm Goretti, and to hear at first hand about the challenges they faced. I was very pleased last week to see His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales visit Helston, in the constituency of the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), shining a spotlight on the strong spirit and resilience of the people of Cornwall.
In the period preceding the storm, our world-leading weather warning service played a significant part in the initial Government response. The storm made landfall on Thursday 8 January; the Met Office issued a rare red national severe weather warning across the Isles of Scilly and parts of Cornwall. The storm brought a combination of heavy rain, significant snow and strong winds to England and Wales. Emergency alerts were quickly dispatched to half a million residents in Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, advising them to remain indoors until the danger had passed. The conditions resulted in widespread power outages and disruption to transport networks. The national response was managed by the Cabinet Office, which co-ordinated meetings with health and environmental experts and senior Government officials. The Cabinet Office has committed to a comprehensive review of the response to Storm Goretti, which aims to ensure that lessons are captured across Government to improve our response to future severe weather events.
The Government are also acutely aware of the challenges faced by British farmers due to extreme weather, which can impact harvests and consequently influence food prices. Despite these challenges, the UK maintains a resilient food supply chain that is underpinned by diverse sources; robust domestic production; and reliable import routes. During a recent visit to Aberystwyth University, I visited the Institute of Biological, Environmental and Rural Sciences, a leading research institute dedicated to advancing the sustainable production of food, feed, and plant-based resources. I also met Aled Jones, the former president of the National Farmers’ Union Cymru, and we discussed the vital importance of securing our nation’s food supply. I recognise that the Government must work collaboratively with farmers and the NFU to ensure that our food supply is safeguarded for the long term.
As has been mentioned, our telecommunications networks are a vital part of the UK’s critical national infrastructure and our emergency response in weather-related crises. They support the functioning of essential services and keep people connected when they need it most. The public switched telephone network often relies on overhead cables that can easily be damaged during severe winds, and most handsets rely on power supplies. Telecoms companies are upgrading landlines from analogue to digital, with over two thirds of lines across the UK already having been migrated. We recognise that telecoms resilience is underpinned by a resilient power supply. Through close co-ordination with the energy sector, the emergency planning community and industry, we are strengthening back-up power arrangements, improving situational awareness, and ensuring that the sector is ready to activate mitigation measures when risks escalate.
Standards in Public Life
Judith Cummins Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Darren Jones
I thank the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee for her question. She raises important points about the process for appointing ambassadors and the delay between announcement, appointment and the host country accepting their appointment to the role. That is why we have made it clear today that the security vetting process will now have to be concluded before announcement and confirmation.
My right hon. Friend asks me about the role of pre-appointment hearings. I know that the permanent secretary of the Foreign Office has already informed her Committee that it is entitled to invite ambassadors to appear before the Committee to answer questions. Of course, we continue to keep all other pre-appointment hearings under review.
Darren Jones
On the first part of my hon. Friend’s question, I can assure her that all procurement rules have been followed, but if there is any suggestion of wrongdoing, we have powers under the Procurement Act 2023 to take action if required. On the second part, I agree that the public were calling for change at the last election, partly because of the repeated scandals that happened under the last Administration. That is why we have already taken action to make the ethics adviser independent and institute the Ethics and Integrity Commission, and as I said in my statement, we will go further.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I call the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
Can I ask the Chief Secretary the following points? He said in answer to an earlier question that the documentation would be released in compliance with the Metropolitan police. Can he ensure that his Department, No. 10 and the Met understand what parliamentary privilege means and assert it on behalf of this House? Secondly, he has mentioned that the Bill that would remove Mandelson’s titles is in preparation, but that is a short Bill. Could he tell us when he expects to see it introduced in this place and guarantee that there will be a one-day process for all stages of the Bill?
The statement today is entitled “Standards in Public Life”. Knowing that Mandelson was a friend of Epstein—forget the extent—and all of Mandelson’s baggage, could the Chief Secretary finally explain to the House why Mandelson was ever on the shortlist of people considered to be appointed to what is probably our most important ambassadorial role?
Darren Jones
The Ethics and Integrity Commission was set up only very recently by this Government to play an important role in relation to standards in public life. We want to work with the commission to ensure that we set it up for success in delivering on the issues and reforms that I have outlined to the House today. That is the basis on which we will collaborate with it.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
I never comment on any conduct or standards issues that may impact individual MPs, precisely because of my adjudicatory role on the Committee on Standards, and I do not propose to refer to the Prime Minister in respect of the potential that, if not all the documents are disclosed to the House, there might be a breach of privilege.
However, let me say this gently: the Minister constantly refers to the past, and to my party’s role in government with regard to breaches of standards issues. From this moment on, will he accept that, given the litany of issues that have befallen the Labour Government, as outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) at the Dispatch Box, it would really behove the Minister to stop doing that, and just to ensure going forward that the Labour Government act with the same standards of conduct that they demanded of my party in government?
Also, given the Minister’s statement, might he request that the Prime Minister attend a meeting with the Committee on Standards to outline exactly how, moving forward, the Prime Minister will uphold the highest of standards?
Lord Mandelson
Judith Cummins Excerpts(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stuart Anderson
My hon. Friend is making a great speech about Mandelson’s influence in the Labour party. It is reported that he was involved in the selection of up to 25% of its candidates. Does my hon. Friend think that the documents in question should be made available to anyone who needs help looking into his influence on the Labour party? [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I am having difficulty hearing the debate.
Sir Christopher Chope
What you were hearing, Madam Deputy Speaker, was incredulity being expressed by my hon. Friends at the revelation that so discredited a man had such an influence over the choice of candidates, many of whom were successfully elected at the last general election. I do not how those Members will vote this evening. It is extraordinary that Mandelson has had this enduring influence over politics in this country for such a long time, and we needed documents to be produced in the United States to get somewhere near the truth.