Draft Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 (Amendment) Order 2026

Mike Wood Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 General Committees

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

I am in the rather fortunate position of being able to stand here as an Opposition Whip and shadow Minister who does not receive a ministerial salary, so I cannot be accused of having any conflict of interest in supporting the Government in what appears to be a sensible and, as the Minister said, technical measure that brings the de jure rules into line with practice over the past few years.

It makes sense to exclude the salaries of permanent secretaries, as the previous review concluded, not least because permanent secretary salary bands are so broad as to make a mid-point measurement largely meaningless anyway. As the Minister says, we understand that the pay freeze that has been in place, certainly for the 15 years since the reduction at the start of the coalition Government in 2010, will continue.

If I may just speak very personally—this might be a word for the hon. Member for Hamilton and Clyde Valley—perhaps, in the longer term, the Government may wish to consider whether it is still appropriate that Members of the Whips Office should continue to be paid at a rather lower rate than Parliamentary Under-Secretaries. That is obviously a discussion for a different day and not one on which I think my party, nor the Minister’s, has a collective view.

I have only one question. As the entitled salaries are increasing while the claimed salaries continue to be frozen, will the Minister tell the Committee how that affects pension entitlements? Are they calculated according to the salary to which Ministers are entitled or the salaries that are actually paid?

Draft Procurement (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Mike Wood Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2026 General Committees

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

You can never have too many procurement SIs in a week, but for those who did not have the pleasure of Monday afternoon’s Committee, I will spare them some of the background information and just say that the Opposition support the draft regulations. As the Minister says, they will give effect to important provisions introduced by the previous Government’s Procurement Act 2023. The details required to be published for contracts over £30,000 are particularly important, as are the measures to ensure transparency for some sub-threshold contracts.

Understandably, the Government have again not produced a separate impact assessment for the draft regulations, relying instead on the broader impact assessment that accompanied the Procurement Act and the associated reforms in 2022-23. Although many of the provisions are technical in nature, they will nevertheless shape how the new procurement framework operates in practice. It would therefore be helpful if the Minister could provide reassurance that the central digital platform is ready to support the expanded responsibilities under the regulations, and that the contracting authorities and suppliers, particularly smaller organisations and enterprises, have been given sufficient guidance to adapt to these changes. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Digital ID: Public Consultation

Mike Wood Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement and for the briefing a short time ago.

It is said that in 1720, gullible investors were invited to put their money into

“a company for carrying out an undertaking of great advantage, but nobody to know what it is”.

Today, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister appears to be reviving that proud tradition. For months, his Department has insisted that digital ID was absolutely essential, and until a few weeks ago, it had to be mandatory—even for babies. However, after months of insisting that the scheme was indispensable, the Government are now asking the public to tell them just what it is indispensable for. There was a time when this was supposed to be the magic bullet to tackle illegal migration. Now, the Cabinet Office seems to be suggesting that it might just help to reduce hold times in Government call centres.

This great undertaking has gone from promising the elixir of eternal youth to the equivalent of, “Well, you never know, it might help if you have a slightly upset tummy.” The public know snake oil when they are offered it. We should not be surprised, because this never was a thought-through policy; it was always a distraction stunt. For years, officials have been looking at the ID file on the shelf, hoping for a Government desperate enough to pick it up, and last September they finally found one. Desperate for an announcement to shove Andy Burnham off the front pages before a tricky Labour conference—look how that turned out—the Prime Minister dusted off this scheme with no clear idea of how it would work, what it would cost or what the consequences would be.

After one of the Government’s many U-turns, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister now assures us that this digital ID will not become compulsory. Nothing is ever compulsory until it suddenly is. We know how this story goes. At first, it is voluntary, then it becomes strongly encouraged. Then, you discover you need it to open a bank account and see your GP. Before long, your phone battery dies while you are in the queue at Costa, and you are essentially a non-person: “Sorry, sir, no flat white for you. Computer says you no longer exist.” It is no wonder that even the Health Secretary wants nothing to do with this particular headline.

Of course, the Government tell us not to worry because the system will be secure. This is the same Government who cannot even keep their own Budget secret. How much confidence can the public really have that their personal data will not be misused, when the Minister who was responsible for the scheme this time last week had to resign following reports that he hired a firm to spy on journalists who had written negative stories about his organisation?

In November, the Office for Budget Responsibility put the cost of this boondoggle at £1.8 billion over three years, which is more than the cost of building and operating a new Type 45 destroyer—and nearly as dangerous if not used properly. The OBR did not change that figure in last week’s projections, so we can assume that £1.8 billion remains the best estimate. And for what? Britain has managed perfectly well for centuries without a peacetime national identity system. Society functions without citizens having to authenticate themselves to the state every time they wish to open an app or go about their daily lives. Before we rush headlong into constructing the world’s most elaborate digital clipboard, the Government should recognise some serious concerns. If their system fails, it will be expensive; if it is hacked, it will be dangerous; and if it expands, it will be intrusive. So what exactly is the overwhelming crisis in British life that requires us to take all three risks?

Until the Government can answer that question convincingly, the British public will view this proposal in exactly the same way that they view most grand Whitehall technology schemes: with deep suspicion, a modicum of mild amusement and a firm determination to keep their identity exactly where it belongs—in their own pocket, not floating somewhere in the Government’s cloud.

[Darren Jones]

I enjoyed the hon. Member’s response to the statement, and I thank him for lifting our spirit with it. Let me say two things to him gently. First, I am very confident that, because the public do their banking and shopping online in a quick and convenient way, the fact that the Government are saying, “You should be able to access public services in that way,” will seem perfectly sensible and pragmatic. If Conservative Members want to say that the status quo is the best we have to offer and we should not even try to make it better, then all luck to them. Secondly, I genuinely do not think that I heard—not for the want of trying—a single question in the hon. Gentleman’s remarks, so I have nothing further to add.

Draft Procurement Act 2023 (Specified International Agreements and Saving Provision) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Mike Wood Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 General Committees

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Sir Desmond. The Minister will be aware that we have some concerns about part of the UK-India agreement, but those concerns do not apply to the provisions on public procurement, and as such we support the measures in the regulations.

In effect, the regulations add the UK-India agreement to schedule 9 to the Procurement Act 2023 introduced by the previous Government. That will mean that suppliers from India that fall within the scope of the agreement will be entitled to participate in relevant UK public procurement processes on the same basis as UK suppliers.

We are proud of many of the changes brought in by the last Government through the Procurement Act to boost the UK economy, including the move from the EU’s most economically advantageous tender system to our own, broader, most advantageous tender system. That subtle change of language has massive real-world implications. It lets contracts reflect real value and not just price. Instead of the rigid focus on the lowest price under the previous EU-derived rules, under our new procurement framework we can consider value more holistically, including social and local benefit; instead of restrictive procedures, there is more competitive flexibility, so that buyers can design the process; and instead of it being difficult to exclude bad actors, as was the case under the previous system, robust powers are in place to debar suppliers on national security grounds. I am sure that the Minister will confirm that those powers will still apply under the regulations.

Importantly, buyers can now give significant weight to bids that create jobs in their specific region or the sector for which they are responsible, and for the first time, public bodies are publishing key performance indicators for major contracts. If a supplier fails to deliver for the public, it can be held to account and potentially barred from future work. Given those positive changes, it makes sense to apply the new system to procurement covered by the UK-India trade agreement.

Of course, due to the transitional provisions currently in place, some procurements continue to be governed by earlier legislative frameworks, including the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 and the Utilities Contracts Regulations 2016. That is one of the reasons why we agree that the regulations before us, which will ensure that the procurement chapter of the UK-India agreement can also apply to procurements still conducted under those earlier regimes, are necessary.

In practice, that means that economic operators benefiting from the agreement will be entitled to the same treatment as UK suppliers in procurements carried out under framework agreements, dynamic purchasing systems or qualification systems that remain subject to the previous rules. The amendments will apply only to procurements commenced after the UK-India agreement enters into force; procurements already under way will not be affected.

The Government have indicated that a full impact assessment has not been produced on the basis that the regulations are not expected to have a significant impact on the private, voluntary or public sectors. Given the scale of public procurement in the United Kingdom, it would be helpful if the Minister provided some clarity on a few points.

First, what assessment has been made of the value of procurement opportunities in the UK that will now be accessible to Indian suppliers under the agreement? On the flip side, can the Minister further lay out what reciprocal access UK businesses will gain to public procurement markets in India, and what practical support will be available to help UK firms, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, to take advantage of those opportunities? Thirdly, could he clarify the expected timetable for the agreement to enter into force and, therefore, for these provisions to begin applying in practice?

The regulations are, in many respects, technical in nature, but they form part of the broader implementation of the UK-India trade agreement and therefore could have significant implications for access to public procurement markets, both here in the UK and abroad, so it is right that the Committee carefully scrutinises how they will operate in practice. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Wood Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

After at least 15 major U-turns, it is helpful to check which promises the Government still intend to keep. On 22 July 2024, when I asked the Prime Minister whether he could promise that he would not accept the automatic application of EU rules unless they had been specifically approved by this Parliament, he answered simply, “Yes.” Can the Minister say that it is still the Government’s position that we will not be required to adopt new European Union legislation?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Of course there will still be a role for Parliament in the mechanism, as set out in last May’s common understanding. The Conservatives have to own the choice they are making here. Through our food and drink agreement, we will take away costs from businesses, take away red tape and have a downward pressure on food prices. The Conservatives will want at the next election to put that red tape back and put those costs up. That is their choice, and I welcome the debate with them.

[Mike Wood]

The Minister knows very well that the choice was that of the biggest democratic exercise in UK history. His party promised to respect the result of that referendum but is instead seeking to row back on it. Members of the House and the wider public will have heard that the Minister clearly did not rule out the UK having to adopt new European Union legislation. The Minister will know from his time as shadow International Trade Secretary that we would never accept a trade agreement where the arbiter is an institution on one side, so can he at least rule out having the European Court of Justice as a body adjudicating in any disputes that follow from his reset?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The shadow Minister has not read the common understanding and the mechanism that is set out. There is an independent arbitration panel, with the role of the European Court of Justice restricted to the interpretation of EU law but not binding on the overall decision of the panel. He ought to read the detail in the agreement. We were talking about history earlier. My best piece of advice to him is to do his research before he asks his questions.

Public Right to a Vote of No Confidence

Mike Wood Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

I, too, thank the more than 120,000 people across the United Kingdom who signed the petition. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) in acknowledging the many organisations that have engaged constructively on this issue, many of which have already been named. They include Unlock Democracy, whose chief executive Tom Brake is a former Member of this House, the Hansard Society, the Electoral Reform Society, and many others that have worked on an independent basis to review our constitutional arrangements.

Members’ views on this proposal will differ in line with their views on the effectiveness of this Government, but the number of signatures demands that we treat the petition with the utmost seriousness and respect. The petition understandably calls for a further mechanism that would allow the public to remove a Government who no longer command public confidence. My hon. Friend read an excerpt from the petition, in which the petitioners said that they feel they have seen the opposite of what the Government promised before the election. Many people across the country in all our constituencies will recognise that sentiment.

The Government have seemingly lurched from error to error and from crisis to crisis. Decisions that have been made have damaged the economy, undermined business, driven up unemployment, increased debt, and left communities and public services struggling. Above all, they have hit confidence in the Government, because people were promised so much but have seen so little delivered. Whether it is veterans being dragged through the courts or sovereign territory being conceded, the public are not getting what they expected—indeed, they are not getting what the Government said only months ago, in some cases, before the 15 major U-turns. Commitments made before the election have been abandoned: the promise of no tax rises on working people was broken and pensioners were left struggling after cuts to winter fuel payments. My hon. Friend raised many other examples in his opening speech.

The crux of the debate comes down to perhaps the biggest promise that the Prime Minister made before the election: his pledge to deliver the highest standards in public life and “a Government of service”. Instead, the Government have delivered scandal after scandal, many of which were of their own making. Only this weekend, the inquiries Minister had to resign after being investigated by his own Department. It is no surprise to see members of the public signing petitions such as this one to try to regain an element of control from a Government who were elected with an enormous majority but are failing to deliver what they promised.

While the public’s frustration is clear and understandable, we must look carefully at the proposal itself. Any new mechanism must work in all circumstances. The previous Government introduced a recall mechanism for Members of Parliament who were found guilty of certain criminal offences or who seriously breached the standards of this House. That allowed their constituents to decide whether they wanted those Members to continue. I am not necessarily against looking at whether that principle could be expanded to a national level. We want our political systems to be more responsive to the electorate, but we need to look carefully at how that could be done within a parliamentary rather than a presidential system, because that is the existing system in many countries where the public have the ability to trigger elections or recalls at a national level.

It is the electorate who choose us and it is the electorate who remove us, if they wish, at a general election. Under our parliamentary system, a Government hold office because they command the confidence of this House. That is a fundamental principle on which our system and our democracy rely.

As the Cabinet manual explicitly states, a Government’s authority flows from their ability

“to command the confidence of the elected House of Commons”.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk said in his speech, that confidence can be tested at any time through a vote of confidence or a vote of no confidence.

As the Leader of the Opposition has said, that option is available for those Members of Parliament whose constituents feel that we need a general election. I urge all constituents who feel that way to make sure that their representatives in Parliament are aware of the strength of that feeling, because the conventions of parliamentary democracy have served us well.

Introducing a direct recall mechanism for removing a Government or triggering a general election before the parliamentary term is due to expire would raise significant practical and constitutional questions, some of which have already been highlighted, such as whether a successful public vote of no confidence would automatically trigger a general election, or simply require a change of Prime Minister to form a new Government within the existing Parliament, and whether such a change in personnel would suffice.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk noted, it is unclear what threshold should demonstrate genuine national support that would suggest that a Government have irretrievably lost the confidence of the British people, and are not merely going through what might be temporary unpopularity at a time when they need to make difficult but, perhaps, necessary choices. Would it be at the level that has been set for recall petitions for individual MPs, which has tended to be very low? In almost all such cases, once a petition has been triggered, the threshold has been met. That would lead to some instability.

Alternatively, would we be looking at a higher threshold? Would we require 50% of registered voters, or more voters than a Government secured at the previous general election? As has already been mentioned, if the threshold were too low, we risk well-funded groups being able to repeatedly attempt to destabilise any Government of any political party. We would have to seriously consider the risk of that including outside actors with their own motives before making any constitutional changes of this significance.

On a national level, how could we be confident that a signature is verified? Where we have postal votes in a parliamentary or local council election, there is something to compare them against, but unless we are requiring signatures alongside voter registrations, which would go against the direction that I know the Government are setting out in this evening’s legislation, there would be unlikely to be any definitive database against which any signature on a petition could be compared. Furthermore, how could we prevent petitions from being launched back to back, creating permanent instability?

These are just some of the questions that might be asked. They are not minor details, and it is fundamental that we consider them before we look at major constitutional change. We have seen the consequences of poorly considered constitutional reform in the past, such as in the case of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. It was, genuinely, introduced with the noblest of motives, but we then saw its impact at a time when there was no consensus or majority in Parliament to dissolve Parliament and allow for a fresh election. It seems it was not properly considered.

Although we should be cautious about rewriting the constitution, we cannot ignore the clear message sent by petitions such as this one. As my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk said, it is only weeks ago that more than 3 million people signed a petition calling for a general election. That was just one of a number of petitions expressing similar sentiments. Such a level of public anger should concern every hon. Member. Whether or not they happen to agree, in this case, that this Government are not delivering, it should be a concern across the political spectrum that people feel unheard and ignored.

I urge those who signed this petition, and others seeking an early election, to make sure that their representatives are aware of their view and to encourage those representatives, if appropriate, to pursue that constitutional route because Governments that lose the confidence of the House have, historically, either resigned or sought a general election. I do not think that Governments can continue for too long when a majority of their Members have constituents who have lost confidence in the Government.

After the promises made at the last election it is no wonder that so many of our electors feel let down. That is why this petition matters; it sends a clear signal from the public to Parliament. The message is simple: people want accountability, honesty and the ability to take back control, even where the Government have a very large majority, as this Government do. Above all, the public want competence and a Government who deliver. This Government are fast running out of road and the sooner that the country is given the chance to choose a new direction, the better. Ahead of the next general election we will certainly look at what mechanisms might be appropriate and effective to allow voters to retain control in between general elections. We would be reluctant to rush into committing to specific mechanisms until we have had a chance to properly consider what the consequences, intended and unintended, of such mechanisms would be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Turley]

I recognise the hon. Member’s distinction, and I think he is absolutely right. I very much enjoy the role of our fourth estate, but there are many who constantly seek upheaval and drama in politics, which, for those of us focused on delivering for the British people, can sometimes become a bit of a distraction.

As hon. Members here know well, holding the Government to account does not simply stop between general elections; that has never been the case. Parliament remains sovereign and there are opportunities for Ministers across the Government, including the Prime Minister, to account for their actions and explain what they are doing to deliver on the promise of change that the public voted for in 2024. At the last general election, the Labour party promised to take action following years of Tory chop and change. I am sure we all remember the collapse of Boris Johnson’s Government, with 43 members of that Administration resigning in one day.

Our long-standing constitutional arrangements facilitate stability, while balancing the need to test the confidence in the Government of the day in the elected House of Commons. Altering those arrangements could risk creating a constant revolving door and an inability to achieve anything, and would incur significant costs to the public purse, given the expenses associated with administering general elections. Overall, such changes would serve only to undermine public trust in politics, create more instability and cause paralysis in Government.

I remind hon. Members that our constituents already have a clear route to influence the decisions made at the highest levels of Government. All of us here know that our constituents are able to—and do—make representations to us as their local constituency MPs, and we in turn champion their views in this place and make representations to Ministers in Government. In the event that voters signal a desire for an election, the public’s voice will be channelled effectively through their local MPs across the House.

In 2024, the public voted for change; the public voted for more than 400 brilliant Labour MPs in this House. After 14 years of chaos and uncertainty, of Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, they voted for stability. Introducing a right for the public to have a vote of no confidence could undermine our parliamentary democracy—the duty, responsibility and indeed primacy of this place—and could weaken the Government of the day’s ability to deliver on their mandate.

As hon. Members have referred to, those who signed this petition have said they feel that the promises we made to them at the last general election have not yet been delivered. We all recognise that change takes time but, with every month and every pay packet that passes, I know that people will feel that change more and more.

I am extremely proud of the positive changes that the Labour Government have brought about since the last general election. Given the reference that has been made to manifesto pledges, I will give Opposition Members some good news to share with their constituents about the many manifesto pledges that we have already delivered.

For example, there is our landmark Employment Rights Act 2025, which brings better maternity and paternity rights, an end to fire and rehire, and an end to exploitative zero-hours contracts—a manifesto promise delivered; an increase in the national minimum wage, rising to £12.71 next month, a sign that wages are up more under this Government so far than under 10 years of the party opposite—a manifesto pledge delivered; the Border Security Command to crack down on criminal gangs—a manifesto promise delivered; the ending of the exemption of private school fees from VAT to enable the investments that we are seeing every day in breakfast clubs, so that every child can start school ready to learn—a manifesto pledge delivered; and the strategic defence review and our plans to spend 2.5% of gross national income on defence to keep our country safe—a manifesto pledge delivered.

[Mike Wood]

To be clear, can the Minister confirm that the Government will not be spending 2.5% on defence this year?

[Anna Turley]

Sorry—that is a manifesto pledge that we are implementing. I thank the hon. Gentleman for the clarity.

There is also the National Wealth Fund, to support investment in our national infrastructure across the country—delivered; Great British Energy, to support the delivery of clean power by 2030 and the creation of well-paid jobs in the industries of the future—delivered; and Great British Railways, bringing our railways back into public ownership, rebuilding trust in this vital public service—delivered. And we have delivered more than 5 million additional NHS appointments, to bring down the record-high waiting lists we inherited from the previous Government.

That is a whole raft of our manifesto pledges that we are delivering. Alongside those pledges, we are seeing 500,000 children lifted out of poverty, breakfast clubs across the country, wider access to free school meals for families on universal credit, uniform costs capped, prescriptions frozen, rail fares frozen and energy bills coming down. Those are signs that we are delivering on our manifesto. There is so much more we can do, and so much more that we will deliver, before the general election.

In summary, we fear that the introduction of a vote of no confidence by the public would undermine the stability and effectiveness of the Government of the day in delivering manifesto commitments, such as those I have just set out. It would also undermine the primacy of this place, the cradle of democracy, by confusing the clear lines of accountability that general elections provide. The public’s right to remove and replace the Government of the day is already a key part of our democratic system, and is undertaken freely and fairly after a Parliament is dissolved for a general election—that is the historic and sovereign democratic system of the British people. For this reason and the other reasons I have set out, the Government cannot support the petition.

This Labour Government are focused on delivering the change the country voted for at the last general election. We will continue to listen to the public’s views and deliver, as I demonstrated, on the promises we made to them in our manifesto, to end the 14 years of chaos and decline and build a better Britain.

EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK

Mike Wood Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

More than seven in 10 voters in my constituency voted to leave. That was not an accident, it was not confusion, and it was not because they were lied to.

Having spent seven happy years working in the European Parliament, I was not unfamiliar with the EU’s strengths, as well as its faults, but if there was one thing that caused me some hesitation before I decided to campaign for leave, it was knowing that it would be a huge undertaking. Unpicking 50 years of legislation and regulation would clearly be disruptive for many businesses, including many in my constituency, and would use up a lot of Government time for at least a decade. Of course, a global pandemic, a once-in-a-generation energy crisis and the shockwaves of war in Europe have added to the disruption. But to attribute every headwind to Brexit, as some Members have done, may be politically convenient, but it is economically simplistic.

Some Members have spoken about a £90 billion hit. The reality is that, since Brexit, UK GDP has grown at about the same rate as Italy’s, and above that of France and Germany.

[Ben Coleman]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Mike Wood]

No, I only have five minutes.

For that £90 billion to be credible, one would have to imagine that we would have vastly exceeded the growth of every large European country if only we had stuck to what we were already doing, closer to the framework that those countries with lower growth are still in.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Mike Wood]

I will very quickly.

[Hon. Members]

Oh!

[Carla Lockhart]

I think the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) has had his say, quite significantly.

The EU is a failing entity and we got out at the right time. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is the continued capitulation of this Government and other UK parties, and a failure to accept the democratic outcome, that has led us to this point—especially the problems we are experiencing in Northern Ireland? Joining the EU is not the solution; it is about a strong Government leading this United Kingdom as a whole.

[Mike Wood]

The hon. Lady raises an important issue. Last summer, the Federation of Small Businesses in Northern Ireland said that two thirds of the SMEs in Northern Ireland that moved goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland had ceased to do so because of the way EU checks were being conducted. The Northern Ireland protocol says that if the UK experiences diversion of trade, we can take unilateral action. If two thirds of small businesses does not count as diversion of trade, what does? As the record shows, exports to the EU grew more in the five years since we left in 2021 than they did in the six years before the referendum.

The Opposition have set five clear tests for any renegotiation with the European Union: no return to free movement; no new payments to the EU; no loss of fishing rights; no dynamic alignment with EU rules; and no compromise on NATO’s primacy in European defence. Those tests are not ideological; they are the minimum requirement for respecting the 2016 mandate. Dynamic alignment may sound technical, but it means accepting rules that we no longer shape. Budgetary contributions may be dressed as programmes, but they mean sending money back without membership—often far more than can be fairly attributed to the costs caused by our participation. A customs arrangement that restricts our trade autonomy undermines the very sovereignty that voters endorsed.

Brexit was never about isolation: it was about independence. It was about being outward looking on British terms. We now have the ability to strike trade agreements globally. We have joined the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, helping to open access to markets in 11 high-growth economies, from Canada to South Korea and Australia. Many of the bilateral trade deals that we have signed go far beyond the proceeding EU trade agreements, with deeper digital trade and data chapters that are important to so many of the sectors in which Britain is strongest.

Financial market reform has reduced the risk margin for life insurers, meaning that we can promote long-term growth and divert more to long-term infrastructure and green technologies. In agriculture, the UK has moved to environmental land management schemes, based on the principle of public money for public good, to support environmental outcomes instead of just paying landowners to own land. Our duty is clear: to honour the mandate, to defend the sovereignty the people voted for, to work with our allies as equal sovereign partners where we can, and to protect our country’s ability to take its own decisions in our nation’s interest.

Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address

Mike Wood Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

I thank the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister for the statement, which we received at 3.38 pm. I gently suggest to him that the 45 minutes referred to in the ministerial code is a minimum, rather than a target.

On 4 February, this House voted, cross party, for a Humble Address to be presented. That is not a polite suggestion; it is a formal command from Parliament to the Executive, but three weeks later, the Government have moved with the urgency of a tired sloth on a bank holiday Monday. Before the recess, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) sent a comprehensive list of questions to the Cabinet Office. He received nothing back—not a letter, not a postcard, not even an out-of-office reply, so let us try for some verbal clarity today.

The Prime Minister previously staked the integrity of this process on the personal oversight of the Cabinet Secretary—and then he sacked him. Has the change in Cabinet Secretary caused a scoping delay, or are the Government simply using the handover as convenient long grass to kick this into? Reports suggest that a secret investigation into Lord Mandelson’s conduct took place last September. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar asked about this on the Floor of the House, and again in writing, but there has been silence. Can the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister tell us if that report exists? If so, who wrote it, and will the Government stop playing hide-and-seek and publish it?

The Government call this an urgent review, yet the terms of reference remain as elusive as a coherent Treasury forecast. The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven (Chris Ward) promised my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar in the debate on 4 February that he would write with answers, yet there is still nothing. Can the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister tell us whether the scope includes the £241 million Ministry of Defence contract awarded to Palantir following Lord Mandelson’s off-diary meetings? Does it cover Global Counsel? Or are we looking only at bits of the noble Lord’s Rolodex that are not politically explosive?

The Intelligence and Security Committee is being asked to help, yet its secretariat consists of Cabinet Office civil servants. As the ISC itself warned last May, an oversight body should not be beholden to the very organisation it is supposed to be overseeing. If this is a genuine audit, what steps are being taken to ensure that the committee can operate without conflicts of interest, when Cabinet Office staff are considering material that relates directly to decisions taken by the Cabinet Office itself?

Mr Speaker, you could not have been clearer:

“the police cannot dictate to this House.”—[Official Report, 4 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 375.]

Yet the Government remain coy about the legal basis for withholding documents. We need an unequivocal commitment today that once the police are finished, every withheld page will be published—no excuses, and no redactions by stealth—and that in the meantime, any documents that are withheld from publication at the request of the police are handed to the ISC immediately, as you indicated after the debate, Mr Speaker.

Finally, will the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister commit to a Keeling-style register of all withheld documents? If the Government have nothing to hide, they should have no problem listing exactly what they are keeping from us, and why.

The Opposition have acted in good faith. We have been patient, but careful work must not become a euphemism for managed delay. This House gave a constitutional instruction on 4 February. It is time the Government stopped treating Parliament like an inconvenient interruption to their schedule, stopped giving every impression that their priority is working out whose back to cover, and started providing some actual answers, so that we can start to get to the bottom of this murky matter.

[Darren Jones]

The shadow Minister asked a number of questions, which I will take in turn. He asked if the appointment of the new Cabinet Secretary had resulted in any delay or change to the process. The answer is no; the process is being led by the permanent secretary in the Cabinet Office. It was delegated to her by the former and new Cabinet Secretaries.

The shadow Minister referred to a secret report. As far as I am aware, there is no secret report, and all the documents will be published in the proper way, but he must recognise that we are trying to manage a criminal investigation by the Metropolitan police. I am sure that the House would not want us to inadvertently interfere with that process, which needs to be allowed to happen in the proper way. We are working closely with the Intelligence and Security Committee to make sure that it is able to fulfil the requirements of the Humble Address, and we will support it to do so.

The shadow Minister questioned the Intelligence and Security Committee’s independence. While it is not for me to speak for the committee, I am sure that every member of it will strongly refute his suggestion, given that they honour their independence very strongly, and the Government respect that entirely.

Civil Service Pension Scheme: Administration

Mike Wood Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) on securing this important and timely debate. The situation is an entirely unforced error by Capita, and it has caused real and significant financial distress to thousands of former public servants—people who dedicated their working lives to serving this country. The people affected are individuals who planned responsibly for retirement and relied on the integrity of the civil service pension scheme, but have been left anxious, frustrated and, in many cases, desperate.

Like other hon. Members, I have had several constituents contact me to say that they have been left without any income to fall back on. Mark contacted Capita several times at the start of this year without any reply at all, and he now finds that none of the links in the previous letters and emails from MyCSP work anymore. There was no transition.

In many of the cases reported by colleagues from across the country, those affected are suffering missed mortgage payments, unpaid bills and the indignity of having to borrow money simply to get by. That should never happen to anyone who has served the public in good faith.

[Anna Dixon]

The hon. Gentleman sets out many of the hardships and challenges, as other hon. Members have in this debate. Will he take some responsibility? Under the previous Government, when this contract was let, these problems should have been foreseen and the contract never awarded to Capita.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Wood]

I am sure that the hon. Lady will accept that because I was not a Minister in the previous Government, I did not have access to the tendering process, and do not have the details of the bid. However, there was a clear failure by the previous providers and there have been many opportunities since the last general election to review that contract in light of the clear failure—

[Cameron Thomas]

The hon. Gentleman is probably quite right to note that there were significant failings by the previous provider. Does he accept that there were clear failings by the previous Government?

[Mike Wood]

No. The hon. Gentleman is obviously trying to hide from the fact that his party was part of the Government that awarded that contract in 2012 to the mutual joint venture. He may wish to look at his own party’s part in that if he thinks that it was a mistake. Sadly, the information provided by the Minister for the Cabinet Office to the House last week fell well short of what is required. It failed to address the fundamental question of how the Government allowed Capita to take over the contract in December despite the repeated warnings and the signs that it had clearly failed in its key milestones.

[John McDonnell]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Mike Wood]

I must continue, because I have only a short time; I have given way twice. We know that in November 2023, Capita was awarded the contract to administer the civil service pension scheme, but we also know that the previous administrator, MyCSP, had its contract extended until December 2025 specifically to allow for a two-year transition period that was meant to reduce risk, not create it. The National Audit Office investigation report published in June 2025 made it clear that MyCSP had failed to meet agreed service levels in the final year of its contract, with complaints more than doubling towards the end of that contract. That is a large part of the reason why the contract was awarded elsewhere.

If I may briefly refer to the tragic case of Philippa—not a constituent but someone who I had the pleasure of meeting because she was the long-term partner of a member of staff of one of our colleagues.

[John McDonnell]

Will the hon. Member give way? He should not be allowed to get away with this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Lewell (in the Chair)]

Order. It is up to the Member if he wishes to give way; he has made it clear that he does not wish to.

[Mike Wood]

I have already given way twice and I may give way later, but I need to get through my speech so that the Minister can reply, because I know that hon. Members will want to hear her response.

Philippa retired in May and suffered a nervous collapse triggered by pension delay. Tragically, Philippa died on Boxing day, so that is the very real human cost. Of course, the National Audit Office report did not stop with the failings of the final years of MyCSP’s contract. It also highlighted that Capita had failed to meet three of the six key transition milestones that were due by March 2025, all relating to scheme design and operational readiness. In other words, the warning signs were there in black and white. Ministers were on notice of the potential for serious problems, and of the consequences that those problems would have for pensioners, for at least the final half of 2025.

[Leigh Ingham]

Does the hon. Member agree that the warning signs were there when Capita failed on the TPS?

[Mike Wood]

As I have said, I did not see the details of the bid. Obviously, with any bid, it is right to look at previous performance. There will be some causes for concern with any of the bidders for large Government contracts because of the complexity of those contracts.

[John McDonnell]

Maybe the Ministers at the time did not see Capita’s Army recruitment fiasco, its primary care fiasco that put patients at risk, the near-collapse of the teachers’ pension scheme or the cyber-attack in which Capita exposed the data of 6.5 million people and was fined millions. Does the hon. Member not think that Ministers might have taken those into account before awarding this contract?

[Mike Wood]

I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman has not always been an uncritical friend of the current Government, but he has to recognise that his party has been in government for more than a year and a half, during which there were opportunities to take action if they were unhappy with our contract.

As I said, the warning signs were there in black and white. Ministers were on notice of the potential for problems and their consequences. Despite that, on 7 July last year—a full year into this Government—the permanent secretary told the Public Accounts Committee that the Cabinet Office would decide in December whether Capita should take over administration. On 14 November 2025, the Cabinet Office wrote to trade unions confirming that Capita would indeed take over from 1 December, stating that it was satisfied—this Government, this permanent secretary and this Minister’s Department were satisfied—that Capita had taken on board the findings of those reports.

Serious questions have to be answered. What assurances were provided by Capita to Ministers before that final decision was taken at the end of last year? What scrutiny was applied to those assurances and by whom? Why, in his letter to colleagues, did the Minister for the Cabinet Office claim that these issues had only come to his attention “in recent weeks” when both the National Audit Office report in June and the Public Accounts Committee report in October warned of a “clear risk” that Capita would not be ready? The Public Accounts Committee was clear that Capita had missed seven out of its eight key transitional milestones to deliver its IT system and said:

“The Cabinet Office needs to fully develop contingency plans”.

If the Minister is right that he was only made aware of these problems in recent weeks, should the Government not have known far sooner and acted far sooner?

Although it is welcome that interest-free hardship loans are now available, this action has clearly come too late. Those loans should have been made available on an emergency basis from 1 December—the same day that Capita took over administration—so that people were not left in financial limbo. Instead, some pensioners have reported being forced to take out costly commercial loans or to borrow from friends and family simply to cover basic living costs. That is unacceptable. Can the Minister guarantee that no one affected will face further disruption beyond the end of this month? Can she guarantee that pension payments will be stabilised fully and permanently?

The warning signs were there for months, and the failure to act decisively after the publication of the National Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee reports is stark. Although it is deeply disappointing that the Government failed to prevent this from happening, we can all agree that it is now in everyone’s interest—

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Mike Wood]

I have given way four times; I really ought to conclude.

We can all agree that it is now in everyone’s interest for operational stability to be restored as quickly as possible, for the Government to ensure rigorously and transparently that Capita meets its contractual obligations consistently and that any penalty clauses in the contract that can be enforced are enforced to allow for compensation to be paid to those affected. Above all, we owe it to those affected—public servants who did everything asked of them—to put this right and ensure that such a failure does not happen again.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Wood Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

In his statement last month, the Paymaster General promised us that he had secured a great deal for the first year of the Erasmus programme. It is a technique that will be familiar to mobile phone and satellite TV customers around the country. Can the Minister tell us what the Paymaster General could not tell us in that statement: what will it cost in the second and subsequent years?

[Chris Ward]

It is a one-year agreement, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and we have negotiated a 30% discount. That is a good deal. It will be reviewed after 10 months, as he knows. At its heart, the programme is about opportunities for young people from all backgrounds—youth workers, sports professionals, universities and so on. If the Conservative party really wants to fight the next election promising to take that away and to narrow opportunities, I am afraid that it is making a big mistake —on this, as on so much else.

[Mike Wood]

I think the Minister has given the game away: he has just said that it would be wrong to walk away from that. He will know, as the whole House knows, that any negotiation is successful only if you know, and more importantly your negotiating partners know, that there is an alternative to a negotiated agreement. Can the Minister assure the House that, if the European Union is not able to offer similar terms and similar cost for second and subsequent years, he would be prepared to walk away from the negotiations?