UK's Nuclear Deterrent

Lisa Nandy Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

Let me take this opportunity to welcome the Prime Minister to her role.

It is stating the obvious that opinion has been sharply divided in today’s debate, just as it is that that was exactly the Government’s intention. As the Chilcot report clearly demonstrated, when we make decisions of war and peace—of life and death—based on political posturing, assumptions and poor evidence, the results can be catastrophic. There are few decisions more important than the future security of our country and weapons that could kill millions, so I, like most Members, want to see a world without them.

The question, then, is how we achieve that while ensuring that we have a defensive capability that is fit and proper for the 21st century. My personal scepticism about the current proposal is based on concerns about military utility, economic cost and benefit, and whether it is part of a genuine multilateral approach. Many of my hon. Friends have pointed to the position agreed by the Labour party conference in making a perfectly reasonable argument for a continuous at-sea submarine-based nuclear capability, though I would add that the policy also acknowledged a multilateral path to ultimate disarmament. Since that conference decision, a review has been instigated. Perhaps more importantly, we must take account of other developments, not least Brexit, in holding the Government to account today. The Government could have chosen to address that, and the other concerns that I and others have traditionally had, with clear answers; instead, they chose to divide rather than unite.

Let me be clear that I, for one, do not believe that this is about patriots versus pacifists, or who is moral or immoral. No matter what our differences, we all speak to what we think is best for our constituents and our country. That is certainly true of all Members who have contributed today. Many represent communities with a particular stake in this debate. I applaud, in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), whose tenacity in standing up for his own community’s interest is second to none.

We heard a great speech from the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt), the knowledgeable Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, who described Trident renewal as a political weapon surplus to the needs of NATO. The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) quoted Bevin’s famous comments about the need for an independent nuclear capability. However, as Labour Members know, Nye Bevan said:

“It is…not a question of who is in favour of the…bomb, but…what is the most effective way of getting the damn thing destroyed.”

He too was a multilateralist. Meanwhile, the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) invited us to come to his bedroom to see his large weapon—defence establishment at Aldermaston.

Last week I replied to the Secretary of State after his statement concerning the recent NATO summit. I spoke of NATO’s values: international co-operation; military force for defence, not aggression; mutualism and the sharing of risk; opposition to tyranny; and the defence of democracy. Those values are deeply held by Labour Members. It is no coincidence that two of NATO’s founding Governments were led by the new deal Democrats and the Labour party.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

I do not want to interrupt the thread of my hon. Friend’s important argument, but may I bring him to the text of the motion and ask whether he shares my concern about the phrase,

“for as long as the global security situation demands”?

We have just had the Chilcot report, which reminded us that we are not safe if we do not uphold international rules and obligations. I, for one, would be very glad to hear from the Defence Secretary, and from my hon. Friend, what concrete steps are going to be taken to uphold our commitment to multilateral disarmament.

[Clive Lewis]

I will come to that issue later in my speech, but the motion as it stands calls into question the Government’s integrity in holding up the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

Whereas the values that underpin NATO’s formation are timeless, the decision that the United Kingdom should build and maintain its own nuclear weapon system was a strategic military and political decision made on the basis of specific considerations at the time. Making a similar consideration is the task that falls to this House today. Unfortunately, the Government’s timing is wrong and they have fallen short of that objective.

The previous Prime Minister said that today’s vote was to “provide certainty”, but the Government motion does not do that, because it does not change anything. We simply have no more detail. Every indication is that this is a ploy that the Government repeat at will to avoid discussing critical issues. They then create the very uncertainty that they claim to be addressing. If that is not the case, the Secretary of State can very easily say so. There are no new costings in the motion. It used to be said that the Tories knew the value of nothing but the price of everything, but now they do not even know that. If there are any specific commitments to particular contracts, or if any are provided through today’s vote, perhaps the Secretary of State could list them.

The Government’s motion also asks us to endorse their record on multilateral disarmament. Many of us in this House are serious about multilateralism as a policy, not a soundbite. What have this Government, as opposed to previous Administrations, actually done to promote multilateral measures since last year’s non-proliferation conference failed to reach agreement?

The line between unilateralists and multilateralists is too often exaggerated. Surely if we can agree that our goal is for a world free of nuclear weapons, the question is: how do we get there? International agreement is not impossible. The last Labour Government deserve great credit for their role in the international treaties on cluster munitions and landmines. We therefore ask the Government to show real leadership, focus on our shared goals and give us a vision of how we can achieve them.

The motion also considers Trident renewal in isolation from, rather than in the context of, defence policy as a whole. Only last week we discussed the Chilcot report. He recorded a catalogue of equipment failures and their human cost. I know what it is like to be under enemy fire, needing air support and being told that none is available. Conventional forces remain our first form of deterrence against Russian aggression, and they defended our territory the last time it was invaded, in the form of the Falklands.

We need urgent assurance that spending on our nuclear capability is not made at the expense of conventional military equipment. In the past six years, the MOD has seen its budget suffer a real-terms cut of 9%. The number of attack helicopters has been cut by 21%; frigates and destroyers by 17%; fighter aircraft by 25%; and main battle tanks by 41%. The size of the armed forces has been cut by a fifth, and the MOD civilian workforce by almost a third, while carrier strike and maritime patrol craft have been axed altogether. To maintain one single capability at the expense of losing many others would not strengthen our defence, but weaken it.

Costs are critical. The MOD’s equipment plan has been left reeling by last month’s Brexit decision. That is not my conclusion, but that of the Joint Committee on National Security Strategy. The implications for the defence budget may be profound, but we have had no clarity from the Prime Minister today. Where is it? Will the Secretary of State please tell us what assurances he has that the defence budget will be maintained in real as well as proportional terms?

Similarly, the motion asks us to, in effect, endorse the Government’s defence industrial strategy. Let me be clear that we cannot allow the devastation that happened to industrial communities in the 1980s under Thatcher happen again. Retaining a workforce with specialist skills is a matter of military as well as economic security. Those points have been made very clearly today by many Opposition Members and by the GMB and Unite trade unions, but neither they nor I endorse the Government’s defence procurement policy as a whole.

On current trends, 25p in every defence procurement pound is forecast to go to America by 2020. Given the consequences of Brexit for the exchange rate with the dollar, this urgently needs to be reviewed. Just last week, the Government announced a multimillion-pound purchase of nine P-8As and 50 Apache helicopters from America. When will the Secretary of State share with this House the detail to assure us that the deal will, in fact, secure British jobs in the long term? It is the same story on steel. The Prime Minister’s earlier words fell well short of any guarantee about the Successor programme.

The security threats that we face are many and fast changing. There are serious issues worthy of serious consideration. We have heard a range of views from across the House, and rightly so, because this is a complex issue. The biggest shock to our security, for many, has been Brexit. That resulted not from the actions of our enemies, but from the complacency and arrogance of our former Prime Minister and his short-term political game playing.

Report of the Iraq Inquiry

Lisa Nandy Excerpts

Wednesday 6th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

First, I thank those families for the service and the sacrifice of their children. We should genuinely praise the work that everyone in our armed forces did. We have to separate some of the decision making, the lessons learned and the problems from the military action. These people were serving their country in a cause that had been sanctioned by this House of Commons, so we should not in any way denigrate their memory, because they were doing what they believed in, which was serving their country. The most important thing we can do for all their memories is to digest the report, learn the lessons and put in place better decision-making procedures for the future.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

It has been 13 years since Robin Cook returned to the Back Benches to campaign for a world order governed by rules. The worst possible tribute that this House could pay to him or, more importantly, to the very many servicemen and women and Iraqis killed and injured in this conflict would be to draw the wrong conclusions or, worse, to learn no lessons at all. As the Prime Minister prepares for his own departure to the Back Benches, what advice will he give to his successor to ensure that we restore to Britain a foreign policy with an ethical dimension?

[The Prime Minister]

I think that our foreign policy should always have an ethical dimension and always has. The advice I would give to my successor is to build on the processes and procedures that we have put in place, so that we better handle intelligence information and legal advice, better discuss and debate these things in the National Security Council, and listen to expert opinion in the proper way. The worst lesson to learn would be to say that, because these things are difficult, we should withdraw from the world, fail to intervene when it is in our interests to do so and retreat in the way that I have set out. That would be the wrong thing to do, and I do not think it is what Robin Cook would have wanted.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lisa Nandy Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Letwin]

My hon. Friend is also suffering from a misconception. The bulk of the papers involved were released. The bits that were not released relate to security and make specific references to the security services and their activities. Those are being reviewed, and a decision will be made. He is absolutely right that the crucial point is that the people involved deserve justice, so the CCRC needs to see the unexpurgated version, and it has. It has been given full sight of all the papers.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

It is increasingly clear that there is simply no justification for the delay in the review or for the refusal to release the full papers about the case. The Minister may refuse to act, but a Labour Government will act. We will release those papers with the urgency that the situation demands. Justice delayed is justice denied. Why is he so determined to ignore the will of Parliament, ignore the public and ignore the urgency of the situation, and why will he not release the papers now?

[Mr Letwin]

I am sorry that the shadow Minister wrote that question before she heard my previous answers. If, as I hope she will not, she finds herself a Minister after the election and has to make this decision—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] If she finds herself in that position, I hope that she will discover the truth, which I have already told the House—that the CCRC has already seen the papers, so there is no question of justice being either delayed or denied.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lisa Nandy Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

Q3. Does the Prime Minister share my admiration for The Brick, a Wigan charity that last year gave 6,000 food parcels to local families? Will he tell those families why, 30 years after the miners’ strike, yet again our community is having to compensate for its heartless and hopeless Government? I would be ashamed of that record; is that why he will not go head to head and debate it?

[The Prime Minister]

I shall tell the hon. Lady what we inherited in Wigan: since we came to office, unemployment has come down by 44% in terms of the claimant count. In the north-west, we have seen 124,000 more people in work. Those people are now able to provide for their families. That is what is happening. We have a growing economy because we dealt with the mess left by the hon. Lady and her party.

Infrastructure (South-West)

Lisa Nandy Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2015 Westminster Hall

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

I am grateful to you for chairing this debate, Dr McCrea, and I particularly want to put on record my gratitude to the hon. Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter) for securing the debate. Although in recent weeks we have debated in this place and the other place the contracting out of services, he has put firmly on the agenda the contracting out of infrastructure, which is becoming much more important. That is especially true at the moment, because as he rightly says, new funding is being brought forward to replace the funding that was lost under Building Schools for the Future, in the education area in particular.

Listening to the hon. Gentleman’s speech, I could feel his frustration at the way the outcome of this process has shut out some of the outstanding construction companies in his region. I think that that frustration is shared in many other parts of the country, particularly by companies that have a strong track record of providing goods, services and contracts in the public sphere and which feel, understandably, that this sends a very strong message to them that their work has not been valued. Although I would not suggest for a moment that the Government have intended to produce that outcome, he is right to put this very firmly not just on the Minister’s agenda, but on my agenda, as the spokesperson for the Opposition.

That frustration is particularly felt in areas of the country where local authorities have pushed ahead with a local procurement agenda that has sought to build on local and regional expertise to ensure that the benefits of those contracts are felt fully in the areas in which they are granted. However, when they look to national Government to do the same, they find that many of those contracts have been awarded to overseas companies, or companies out of the area.

[David Simpson]

The hon. Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter) made the point that the idea of someone from the United Kingdom getting a contract in France was laughable. That is one of the major problems; other countries practise protectionism. We are not very good at that, and I do not think we should do it, but other countries in the European Union certainly do, and that has a detrimental, knock-on effect on the rest of the United Kingdom.

[Lisa Nandy]

Yes, and in a moment, I will come on to things that the Government might consider doing to strike the balance better in this country, to ensure that we do not shut out some of our best companies with a really strong track record of delivery.

First, I say to the Minister that when commissioning goods, services and big capital projects of the sort that the hon. Member for South West Devon described, we accept that there is a balance to be struck between trying to guarantee value for money and trying to ensure the maximum social and local good. As the hon. Gentleman illustrated well during his speech, those things are often complementary and are not in contrast to one another. That is particularly the case when we look at what has happened to the economy, and particularly regional and local economies, over recent years. It makes a significant difference when services are procured locally and regionally, because that money remains in the region, as he said. Jobs are created and salaries are boosted. Every pound that goes into the pockets of working people in regions such as the north-west or south-west, where he is based, is then spent again in local shops and local businesses, and that cycle of growth continues.

However, in recent years we have seen the opposite. Although I accept that this Government have no huge plans to invest in our regions in the next few years, they have significant spending power; £187 billion was spent by national Government on public procurement in 2012, and I think there may be some more recent figures. That can have a significant impact if it is spent in local areas.

As the hon. Gentleman said, big national contracts are not always value for money. He made the point that many of the construction companies he was talking about have proven track records in his region. We have seen what happens when big national contracts are handed out without a real understanding of local areas. The Work programme was probably the most stark example, but that applies to infrastructure as well. As he said, one of the critical things that the Government could do is think about the impact that procuring services from outside the region has on supply chains, because often companies that come in from outside local areas bring their own supply chains with them.

The Government also need to recognise strongly that at the moment, in the way in which we contract and procure services and goods, there is a power imbalance between the prime contractor and any subcontractors or those providing services as well. A recent example of that was Capita and the civil service training scheme, which the Minister will be well aware of. That £250 million contract was supposed to be about opening up the best deal to the taxpayer, but subcontractors suffered a great deal because of the way in which the terms of that contract were drawn. Even where we decide that we will award contracts to big multinational firms, often based and operating overseas, we need to think much more clearly about how we balance that power relationship and ensure that those further down the supply chain are protected. One way in which we ought to do that is by getting a grip on how payment is made to providers. Quite often, in the procurement that we carry out, that is simply not thought about at the very beginning.

Another way in which the Government could help to move the agenda forward is by concentrating strongly on the expertise within the Government—of which there is a great deal, but it is patchy across different Departments—and on the staffing levels needed. An example of that was the west coast main line franchise, which was a £50 billion contract that was managed in the original instance by just three civil servants.

We think that the Government could do more to think about the wider impact of commissioning and procurement on the public. One way in which they could do that—we would strongly encourage them to do this—is by introducing a public interest test when they are going through the procurement process. We have committed to ring-fencing some contracts for companies in pursuit of a public service mission—that recently became one of the tools in the Government’s armoury. I would be interested to know whether this Government have thought about doing the same.

We are also committed to a community right to challenge where major projects have been announced that do not seem to be of enormous benefit to local areas or regions. It would be interesting to apply that community right to challenge in this case, because I suspect that the hon. Member for South West Devon speaks for many people in his constituency and across south-west England when he expresses anger about the fact that many organisations or firms that could have delivered the projects have not made it on to the list.

One way in which local providers can be of particular help is through their understanding of the local work force. That is one reason why we have given the committed that any national contract or major infrastructure project that is worth more than £1 million will specify that apprenticeships have to be provided as part of the deal. There is a particular benefit from procuring services locally and regionally, because quite often those firms—the sorts of firms that the hon. Gentleman talked about in his speech—will have knowledge of the local work force. They will already be working with education providers and other local businesses to help to provide opportunities for young people. The Minister recently visited the Youth Zone in Wigan, in my constituency, which has a very good record of working with local employers and local education providers to ensure that those links are made. In the case of High Speed 2, that policy would provide 33,000 apprenticeships. We think that the Government could commit to doing that.

It is also important, when commissioning projects and services, to think about the impact on the staff. In recent years, we have seen appalling examples of companies that have been commissioned from outside a local area to provide services. There was an example during the Olympics of a company in the Wigan borough that was commissioned to steward parts of the Olympics. The treatment of the staff in that company was found, when it was investigated, to be absolutely appalling. It was undercutting the minimum wage. There was no regard whatever for people’s terms and conditions, to the extent that staff were made to sleep under a bridge overnight in order to carry out their duties. That case hit the headlines nationally.

There is a particular impact from taking into account the strong and existing ties that local firms have to their own work force. I am thinking of the need to preserve their integrity and reputation. The hon. Gentleman talked about that. When we think about spending very large sums of public money, we should think about the impact on the people who end up delivering the services.

One of the very welcome things that the Government have done is introduce the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012, of which the Minister’s predecessor but one, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd), was a very strong supporter. Recently, the Government published the review of the social value Act to see what impact it has had. The review, by Lord Young of Graffham, unfortunately concluded that it has had a fairly limited impact, but ruled out extending the Act to goods and services, which could have made a huge difference to the sort of commissioning approach that we have heard about today. Surely the ethos of the Act should go beyond the limited scope that it has at present.

I would be interested to know what the Minister plans to do to try to extend the spirit of the social value Act to the sorts of projects that the hon. Member for South West Devon talked about. One point that Lord Young made in the review was that very few public sector commissioners know about the Act, so I hope that the Government will tell us today that they will take up his invitation to promote the Act much more heavily and the principles that lie behind it, because although at present it does not apply directly to school infrastructure projects, the spirit and ethos of the Act would have been extremely helpful in this case.

There is an agenda coming, I think, to most regions, regardless of who is in government after the general election. All three major political parties are committed to a greater devolution agenda. We need to think that through and get it right in advance of power being devolved to city and county regions and locally, because as more and more of these spending decisions are taken at local and regional level, getting it right will become very important indeed. It would make nonsense of the devolution agenda if the responsibility for major projects lay with a national Government who did not take account of the strengths and talents in regions such as the south-west, so I would be interested to hear what the Government have planned, as part of the devolution agenda, to ensure that we draw on those skills and help to boost growth and productivity in every region of the UK, not just a small section of it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wilson]

Okay.

[Lisa Nandy]

If the Minister has any figures about subcontractors, it would be helpful to all of us to see them—perhaps at a later date, if he does not have them to hand. However, I would be grateful if he addressed my point about the power imbalance between subcontractors and contractors. Does the Cabinet Office have plans to make sure that, even where local or regional companies are not granted the primary contract, local subcontractors can still take part in the process without detriment?

[Mr Wilson]

As I said, where there is an imbalance, and subcontractors providing a service to the main contractor are being, for want of a better word, abused, we have the mystery shopper system, which will thoroughly investigate any abuses. Where it has investigated complaints on behalf of individual organisations and it has found problems, it has taken actions that those organisations have found very useful. Most of these concerns can, therefore, be sorted out on the ground while contracts are being supplied.

The third point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon was that the seven firms include three foreign firms, including the French one I have just mentioned. Public sector procurers are required to seek value for money through fair and open competition. Through our membership of the European Union, and because we are a signatory to international agreements, our contracting authorities are required to place suppliers from Europe and various other countries on an equal footing with UK suppliers. That is a two-way street, as it gives our suppliers access to public procurement markets overseas, maximising value for money for the UK taxpayer, while ensuring that UK companies are able to compete abroad.

The Government want UK companies to be successful in public procurement. The best way to bring that about is for those companies to offer the goods and services we need at quality levels and for whole-life costs representing value for money. To that end, the Government are seeking to ensure that their large-scale purchasing power supports the task of boosting growth and enables us actively to shape the UK market for the long term. To place a value on a bid based on the geographical origin of the bidder would be contrary to the single market.

All the same, the Government understand the importance of a long-term approach to supporting UK business and aligning activity to deliver that. As part of the work, several areas where Government action can have an early impact have been identified. They are sectors, technologies, access to finance, skills and procurement. Strategies for 11 key sectors, including construction, are being developed in partnership with business. I should also point out that use of the Education Funding Agency regional framework is not mandatory. I am aware of two other construction frameworks for the south-west. Construction Framework South West, managed by Devon county council, has 11 suppliers, nine of which are British, including Midas. South West Consultancy Framework, managed by Torbay council, has seven suppliers, of which six are British.

The Government are committed to increasing opportunities for suppliers of all sizes to bid for work successfully through the procurement reforms, which also secure value for money for the British taxpayer.

Iraq Inquiry

Lisa Nandy Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

I thank the Backbench Business Committee and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) for bringing this important debate to the Floor of the House. The discussion has been wide-ranging and I have listened with interest to Members in all parts of the House who have expressed many different views both about the decision to go to war in Iraq and about the decision to set up the inquiry and the way that it was established. Most of all, what unites all those contributions is concern about the length of time that it has taken for the inquiry to report. The delay is deeply frustrating. When the inquiry was announced in June 2009, it was never anticipated that in 2015 we would still be awaiting its publication.

In 2001 Sir John Chilcot said that it would take “some months” to deliver the report, given the complexity of the issues, the nine-year period that the report covers and the sensitivity of some of the information that it looked at. We accept that there is a balance to be struck between the need to be thorough and the need to remain relevant, but when the inquiry was announced it was expected to be published within a year. The right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) spoke compellingly about the subsequent delays, why they may have occurred and what that has meant for the inquiry.

We are keen for the report to be published as soon as possible, but the inquiry was established on an independent basis and we believe still that it would be wrong for the timing to be influenced by political parties. That in no way lessens the potential seriousness of the delay in publication. All of us are, or should be, acutely aware of the impact on the families affected by the Iraq war—179 British servicemen and women lost their lives and many others were injured, and we should remember, too, the thousands of Iraqi families who will be watching these events unfold. I know from my own experience of working with some of the families affected by Hillsborough just what a heavy price families pay for such delays.

Many of the questions that surfaced during the debate are questions for the inquiry. It is right to acknowledge that the reasons for the delay have not yet been made clear. When Sir John Chilcot appears before the Foreign Affairs Committee next week, I hope he will be able to provide some of the answers that Parliament and the public seek. Questions have been raised about the role of the Labour Government in setting up the inquiry, and I want to deal with the accusation that Labour voted against establishing an inquiry and in doing so caused unnecessary delay.

It is fundamentally untrue to suggest that Labour was opposed to establishing an inquiry into Iraq. It was the Labour party that established the Chilcot inquiry, and Labour MPs voted against initiating an inquiry on the basis only that there were still troops on the ground, and that it would have been wrong to undermine their role and potentially jeopardise their security. This was also the position advanced by the shadow Foreign Secretary at the time on behalf of the Conservative Opposition. In 2006 the shadow Foreign Secretary said that the Opposition

“do not believe that such an inquiry should be established now. As the Foreign Secretary said, important operations are under way in Iraq. Major political decisions in Iraq and efforts to contain the insurgency appear to be in the balance.”—[Official Report, 31 October 2006; Vol. 451, c. 183.]

It is important to remember, too, that the scale and the breadth of this inquiry are unprecedented. It was established with such a wide remit to ensure that the full story was told. Given the numbers of people who lost their lives or were affected by this conflict, it was essential that the inquiry had broad parameters and commanded the confidence of families.

[Norman Baker]

Does the hon. Lady not accept that the inquiry could have begun and taken evidence while troops were still committed but not published until after the troops had come home?

[Lisa Nandy]

Looking back in Hansard at the debates of the time, we can see that many Members in all parts of the House felt very strongly that to do so would have undermined the role of the troops.

My hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) talked about some of the problems that he sees in the way that the inquiry was set up. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) said, when it reports there will be lessons for all political parties about how we establish such inquiries in future. At the time, the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), said:

“No British document and no British witness will be beyond the scope of the inquiry.”—[Official Report, 15 June 2009; Vol. 494, c. 23.]

Some Members have raised concerns about why it was established with evidence heard in private—a decision that was, again, debated at length at the time. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn said, that potentially provides lessons to guide us in the way we conduct these inquiries in future.

Iraq was one of the most controversial episodes in recent history. It is right to acknowledge that it was a huge moment in this country’s history. It divided Parliament, as we have heard today. It divided my party. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) said, 139 Labour Members of Parliament voted against intervention. I worked for one of them at the time, and I am proud still to call him a friend today. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) talked about how it divided not just his party but his own family. All hon. Members should remember, whichever side of the debate we are on, that it divided the country too. At the time, it did not appear to be black and white to the people or to parliamentarians.

Many of us still hold as strong views now as we did when the war began over a decade ago. The Chilcot report, when it is published, will not remove that controversy. However, as the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) said, it should at least be able to answer some key questions about the decision to go to war and how it came about. The inquiry was established to provide a reliable account of events and, crucially, to help to guide foreign policy making in future. Understanding the decision-making process is a question of justice, but, as the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) said, it is also vital for the future of this country.

We must learn the lessons from what happened. In order to do so, we must respect the sovereignty and the autonomy of the inquiry. That is why we say that it is not appropriate for any political party to seek to influence the timing of the report. However, we understand the frustration that has been expressed, on behalf of much of the public, by many Members here today. Those who initiated this debate and have taken part in it have helped to ensure that this report and this important issue are not forgotten, and for that we are extremely grateful.

Government Contracts (SMEs)

Lisa Nandy Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2015 Westminster Hall

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) for initiating the debate. He was absolutely right to point out just what a force small and medium-sized business are across the country. There are 5 million of them, and they are what keeps our economy moving. He cited examples from his constituency, and I am sure that all hon. Members will have their own examples in mind. Taken together, SMEs are the single biggest employer in my constituency, and that situation is replicated in many towns, cities and rural areas throughout the country.

There is much more that we could do to support SMEs, which are one of the country’s greatest assets, and to unlock their talent, energy and commitment to their communities. I was interested to hear what the hon. Gentleman said about job creation in Northern Ireland over the past few years. It is fascinating to hear what small businesses manage to do despite all the problems and challenges that they face. Think what more they could do if we put in place more support and took away some of the barriers that they encounter.

We must acknowledge the extent to which SMEs have felt the squeeze in recent years, and the problems surrounding Government contracts, which are the focus of today’s debate, must be seen in that context. An economic policy that imposed huge front-loaded cuts on public services has undoubtedly had an impact on SMEs, because in many areas of the country—this picture is familiar to people in Wigan—that policy has created a toxic mix of unemployment, low wages and insecure jobs, which has stopped people spending money in small shops and businesses, thus costing those businesses trade and, in many cases, jobs. In a few instances, the situation has cost people their entire business, which was why I listened with interest to what the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) said about the balance that must be struck between conditions on contracts and the need for simplicity. He is absolutely right to raise that point because there is a common picture throughout the country of contracts that contain unnecessary complexity that could be removed, with some concerted effort.

When we talk to SMEs, we often find that they are keen to use Government contracts as a force for social good, as my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie) described when he spoke about apprenticeships and jobs, but they can need Government support to achieve that. The future jobs fund was a good example of a partnership involving public sector bodies at first, and later smaller employers that could not necessarily afford wage subsidies, but wanted to create opportunities. The programme had a significant effect on young people.

In my area, as is the case in many parts of the country, making the living wage a condition of contracts has been hugely helpful for many SMEs, partly because that means that they do not have to engage in a race to the bottom to undercut prices, because if the requirement to pay the living wage is clearly set out in a contract, such companies can compete without driving down the conditions of their work force. SMEs also benefit from that approach because if more people in towns such as mine are paid the living wage, it is more likely that they will have surplus income to spend in local shops and businesses, meaning that the cycle continues.

It is right to recognise that the picture has been very difficult for many SMEs across the country. The huge front-loaded cuts to many local authorities, health services and other public sector bodies have meant that SMEs have lost contracts. Many small businesses that could borrow money easily from banks on a short-term, sustainable basis a few years ago are now struggling due to the loss of trade and contracts. Taken together, all those things have been problematic for this group of businesses.

Despite the cuts, and although central Government are not handing out large contracts or spending huge amounts on public services, and are unlikely to ramp up that spending any time soon, there is far more that they could do by using the range of tools at their disposal. That was why the hon. Member for South Antrim was right to focus on Government contracts and procurement, which are among central Government’s biggest tools for good. Central Government spend £40 billion a year on goods and services, about 10% of which goes directly to SMEs. Over time—I am not making a party political point because this has happened over a considerable period—a trend has developed for putting in place centralised contractual arrangements that, for various reasons, have tended to shut smaller organisations out of the process altogether. As a result, businesses that are closest to their communities, and that deliver services and do the good that hon. Members have talked about, have become subcontractors in a supply chain, if they are able to compete at all. My hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde said that he might need to get out more, and while I could not possibly comment on that, perhaps the same is true for the Government, because there is a regional and local picture to consider, too.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the hon. Lady accept that, at a time of fiscal constraint, there is a need to get value for money from contracts? That sometimes means that contracts need to be centralised, but one way around that might be to encourage consortiums of small businesses to apply for larger contracts, because such contracts do not necessarily have to exclude small businesses. I sometimes wonder whether we have explored all options of how we ensure that we can have large contracts while still involving smaller firms in delivery.

[Lisa Nandy]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I was just about to address the difficulty that small and medium-sized companies face when bidding for public sector contracts. The hon. Member for South Antrim talked about the lengthy, expensive and unnecessarily complicated process, and the lack of support, so I will not rehearse those points to the Minister, although I am interested in his response to them.

One way in which we can ensure that small and medium-sized businesses are not shut out of the procurement process is by moving that process much closer to communities through the devolution agenda, with more commissioning at a regional level. In the past few years, local enterprise partnerships have been established in the place of the regional development agencies, which were very successful. In some areas, local enterprise partnerships still have to bed in, and we can do much more at the local, regional and national levels to make them work for local communities. I see this being played out at the local level, too, but when resources are scarce in local, national or regional government, there is a perceived tension between getting value for money and giving contracts to local providers or those that can offer over and above in relation to the social good. In reality, small and medium-sized companies are much more effective at delivering such contracts because they are rooted in their community, because they see the social impact of what they do and because they can have regard to a range of factors beyond just day-to-day profit making.

There is a good example of that, from which I hope the Government have learned. During the commissioning process for the Work programme, some smaller providers, including a number from the voluntary sector, pulled out because they felt that they could not make an impact through their contracts. We can see a good example of the problem of contracts being dominated by bigger companies, with smaller organisations acting as sub-primes, because St Mungo’s, the homelessness charity, pulled out because not one person was referred to it through the Work programme during the period of its contract. It is inconceivable to think that, had St Mungo’s been given the contract directly, it would have been unable to find people who were desperate to get into work and could have benefited from the intervention it could offer.

The hon. Gentleman was right to say that such dominance by a small number of larger companies is not effective at any level—it is not good for the public or for SMEs. This is not just about SMEs getting what they deserve; it is about ensuring that we are delivering the best value for money in our communities and across the country.

In the time I have remaining, I will address the length of time it takes for payment to reach SMEs for the services that they provide. We hear the complaint that bigger companies are contracted and small companies have to act as sub-primes. The Government could do much more to act in instances when they have made a payment to a prime provider but that has not yet reached the smaller company at the bottom of the chain.

[Sammy Wilson]

A possible solution when there is a substantial number of subcontractors is the greater use of project bank accounts. Rather than money being paid to the main contractor, it goes into a project bank account to be drawn out as invoices come in. In Northern Ireland, a main contractor can be excluded from applying for public sector contracts for a specified period of time if there are complaints that it is clearly not abiding by the terms of a contract.

[Lisa Nandy]

I would welcome the Minister’s response to the hon. Gentleman’s intervention.

Although the Government’s record on prompt payment is better than that of the private sector, the National Audit Office found a few weeks ago that the figures are skewed by the Government making prompter payments to a few large suppliers. Astonishingly, it is virtually impossible to assess the record of the Cabinet Office and many other Departments because paper invoices are not dated when they arrive, which is a method commonly used by smaller organisations. Despite the Government’s rhetoric, the situation betrays a casual attitude to something that can be make or break for many small businesses. It would be helpful to know what the Minister has done in the past few weeks to address the situation. Were the Government to pay invoices within five calendar days rather than 30, the reduced interest cost to businesses could be worth up to £88 million, according to the NAO, and the reduced cost to the taxpayer could be up to £55 million. The NAO report called for strategic leadership from the Government and I hope the Minister agrees that it is important that the Cabinet Office leads on this by ensuring that its own suppliers are paid on time.

In conclusion, the Government could draw on the success of other countries. Labour would set up a small business administration that could work to mainstream and hardwire such activity in government. That would require a huge cultural change, but there are small things that the Government could do more quickly, such as taking action on late payments, to signal their intent to unlock one of this country’s biggest assets.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lisa Nandy Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wilson]

My right hon. Friend is exactly right. Supporting social enterprises has been a huge priority for this Government, which is why in the autumn statement the Chancellor of the Exchequer increased social investment tax relief, raising the cap to £5 million. We are the party of small business, but we are also the party of social enterprises.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

Will the Minister explain why his Department, which is supposed to be responsible for Government transparency, has refused to release any minutes or attendance lists of meetings between his advisers, the Big Society Network and the Society Network Foundation, and why over six months he has refused to answer 76 parliamentary questions on the subject? Some £3 million were wasted, there were two damning reports from the National Audit Office, thousands of charities are in crisis, and the only beneficiary from the big society has been a Tory donor’s bank account. Is it any wonder that the Minister does not want to answer questions about it?

[Mr Wilson]

As the hon. Lady knows, it has long been the convention in this and previous Administrations that the minutes of ministerial meetings are not routinely released, but all the information pertinent to this issue was shared with the NAO in the course of its investigations. As for the Tory party donors that she mentioned, it is not the case that any of the trustees gained financially from the Cabinet Office funding. The matter has been investigated by the Charities Commission and the NAO twice, and which both found no evidence of what she suggests. Furthermore, the trustees of the charities have invested significant personal resources into them.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I will look very carefully at this, because, as my hon. Friend says, not only the claimant count but the long-term youth claimant count has fallen—it has fallen by 50% in his constituency in the last year alone. I know how much his constituents want to see work on the Skipton flood defence project, which is a very high priority for York, North Yorkshire and the East Riding local enterprise proposal. We will make an announcement about this in the coming weeks.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

Q12. In Wigan recently, my local nurses granted a dying grandma’s fairly remarkable last wish when they wheeled her hospital bed into the car park so she could be reunited for one last time with her much loved horse, just hours before she died from cancer. Those brilliant nurses sum up everything that is great about our national health service, but in a recent poll only 4% of them said they thought the Prime Minister was doing a good job. Can he tell us why?

[The Prime Minister]

I am full of praise for nurses in Wigan. I think they work extremely hard to provide a good service. I particularly applaud the nurse in Wigan who chased the Health Secretary down the corridor and told him a thing or two about how to run the health service. If we are judged on our record, however, there are 9,000 more doctors and 3,300 more nurses in our NHS because we made the decision to protect the funding of the NHS, which Labour told us was irresponsible.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lisa Nandy Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

As we have discussed on numerous occasions, the devolution process is not just an urban phenomenon. We need to make sure that power flows from Whitehall to all parts of the country, be they suburban, urban or rural. It is for each area to decide, when entering a new growth deal, how much they do so not just for cities or city centres, but for the outlying areas. Again, that is left to local discretion.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

It is great to hear that the Deputy Prime Minister wants a bottom-up process for Bradford, but I wonder why he did not extend the same courtesy to the people of Greater Manchester. We now have an imposed mayor, appointed for several years before anyone gets a say at all. Will the Deputy Prime Minister give me a cast-iron guarantee that this imposed, appointed mayor will last no longer than 2017, which was the date mooted when this cosy backroom deal was announced? How long must my constituents be denied a voice?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I suggest that the hon. Lady speak to the leaders of all the councils in the area, including all the Labour leaders, as my understanding is that they advocated this—

[Lisa Nandy]

What about the people?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Well, it is not my problem if local Labour council leaders have not consulted people locally—they made this decision. As she will know, shortly afterwards, on the other side of the Pennines, we entered into a very ambitious deal devolving new powers to Sheffield, without following the metro mayor model entered into by council leaders in her area.

Food Banks

Lisa Nandy Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

I want to start by saying that it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) and that I agreed with so much of what he said. I also want to say that, to be fair, the Minister is right to acknowledge, as we do on this side, that some of the problems that are propelling people in this country to food banks have deep roots and a long history that goes back beyond the time his Government have been in office. However, we simply have to acknowledge the explosion in the scale of the problem in recent years.

We cannot have a sane and sensible debate about how to resolve the problem if Ministers refuse to acknowledge that over the past four years the number of people relying on Trussell Trust food banks alone—there are many other food banks around the country—has gone up from 41,000 in 2010 to nearly a million now, and that in those years we have seen food banks such as the Brick in my constituency springing up to fill need and demand.

Many people are too frightened or humiliated to go and ask for help, and the British Red Cross—more used to working in countries torn apart by war, famine and disaster—is launching its first-ever emergency appeal in this country, one of the richest countries in the world, to feed and clothe our children. We should be ashamed of ourselves. We have to start by acknowledging that and the heartbreaking reality, as all my hon. Friends who have visited food banks in their constituencies will know, of a nation that will not feed its children.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a very good speech, as always. There is agreement across the House about how well food banks are performing, how well organisations such as Tesco are doing and how generous our constituents are in giving money and food to food banks. Does my hon. Friend agree that what is missing on the Government Benches is the anger at the fact that we have food banks in this country? That is what I saw when I was collecting at Tesco in Brook Green—that people are so concerned.

[Lisa Nandy]

The Minister’s warm words and praise for many of the charities running those food banks would be a lot more convincing if his Government had not just tried to gag them to prevent them from speaking out by passing the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014, which we will repeal.

One of the reasons why we have such a problem is that the safety net that those charities campaigned for and that we built during the previous century has been allowed to collapse in this century. What was provided once as a right is now provided as charity. That, in the end, is what lies behind the humiliation facing many of the people forced to walk miles to go to food banks and the gnawing anxiety that they live with daily, not knowing where their next meal will come from.

[Robert Flello]

Is my hon. Friend as shocked as I am by a recent case, typical of so many, of a couple who told me that their mother—an elderly woman who had been feeding them because they could get no support—had had to go into hospital suffering from malnutrition?

[Lisa Nandy]

Indeed. My hon. Friend is right.

In the short time available to me, I want to talk about the solutions to these problems. The first solution, which tackles a long-term trend, is that work must pay. Far too many people have been forced into work that is low-wage and zero or small-hours. One of my constituents wrote to me before this debate and said that she was forced into a job where she was given, on average, only 15 minutes of work a day over the course of a week, and that £1.10 a day did not even cover the cost of her bus fare. When she left that job she was sanctioned, got into debt and ended up having to go to a food bank. The solutions are obvious: raise the minimum wage and encourage firms to pay the living wage.

When the Minister went to Tesco, did he ask that company why it does not pay all its staff a living wage? I would be interested to know. Those who claim to be part of the solution can also be part of the problem. It is the Government’s job to set the tone of what we expect from our major employers. In communities such as mine, there are real issues about the number of jobs available. If the Government do not invest to create jobs, it is no use telling people to get on their bike and go and get a job.

The second thing that Ministers must do is rebuild the safety net. I do not know whether the Minister understands how much damage the bedroom tax has done to people in communities such as mine. It must be scrapped immediately. The benefits delays that my hon. Friends have mentioned are so important. I have people in my constituency who are waiting six months just to get an assessment for employment support allowance. On top of that, the universal credit has been introduced. In principle I support it, but many people are now managing budgets that they never had to deal with before, and it has propelled many of them not just into debt, but into the arms of payday lenders—payday lenders that this Government refuse to do anything about.

If Ministers were at all interested in the experiences of my constituents, which they do not appear to be as they seem to be talking together, they would learn that the culture in the jobcentre—

[The Minister for Disabled People (Mr Mark Harper)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Lisa Nandy]

No, I will not give way. It is about time Ministers listened, rather than trying to tell us that there is no problem in this country.

The cultural change that is needed in the jobcentre, which routinely strips people of their rights and their dignity, will come from getting rid of the unofficial targets for sanctions and restoring adviser discretion so that organisations can work with people, not against people, in their search for work.

I will say this to the Minister, now that he is finally paying attention to what I am saying about the experience of my constituents: what a waste this all is! He talks about food banks. Well, I will tell him something. There is a growing recognition across all the political parties that in the current economic climate we desperately need to harness the talents, the passion and the energy of people in every community, to make this country fairer, stronger, better and more sustainable. Instead, we have charities—cancer charities and children’s charities. Instead of supporting people at the hardest time of their lives, we can do little more than feed and clothe the children in one of the richest countries in the world. What a tremendous waste it all is!