Storm Goretti
Mike Wood Excerpts(3 days, 11 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
I join the Minister in thanking the emergency services, local authority and Environment Agency staff and volunteers, who have worked tirelessly to recover from the storm and to keep the public safe. I also join him in sending our condolences to those families who are grieving and whose lives have been upended by the storm.
Given the severity of this and earlier extreme weather events, what further preparations will the Government make for future storms and for adverse weather? Do they plan to carry out further storm preparedness exercises, and to implement lessons learnt from the previous test of the emergency alert system in response to these extreme weather events? What further discussions have they had, internally and with local authorities, utility providers and emergency services, to co-ordinate the continued response to this storm? Does the Minister agree that the latest mass power outages in the south-west show that the Government should reconsider their drive for more electricity pylons and instead back faster undergrounding of cables, particularly in high-wind zones?
As we heard from the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham), many people reported that when the power failed, mobile signal followed shortly after. What are the Government doing to ensure that telecommunications masts have enough battery or generator back-up to remain operative during 48 or 72-hour storm cycles? What assessment has the Minister made of the implementation and operation of the severe weather emergency protocol to support the most vulnerable, particularly those sleeping rough, in rural areas such as Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly? Storm Goretti has led to significant rainfall in many parts of the country. What assessment have the Government made of localised flooding, and will support be made available to those affected by the storm through the flood recovery network? I understand that the floods resilience taskforce met on 8 September. I should be grateful if the Minister could outline what actions were taken following that meeting to prepare for eventualities such as this.
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for the points that he has raised. He is right to recognise the efforts of all those involved in the operations to support local residents and to restore power where it has been lost. I think it worth pointing out that while normal people will hunker down in these very difficult conditions, we should collectively pay tribute to those who do not that, but go out and brave the elements in order to restore power and provide support for residents who need it.
The shadow Minister made some good points about the importance of looking carefully at these matters and ensuring that Governments are properly prepared for future incidents. I have looked carefully at the response to Storm Arwen a number of years ago, and I think that the Government can learn a fair amount from that particular response. I will ensure through the Cabinet Office, working with colleagues across Government, that we look very carefully at the response to this recent storm and ensure that we are drawing lessons from it so that, as a country, we can be as resilient and as well prepared as we can be for the future challenges that we will undoubtedly face.
The shadow Minister specifically raised the issue of telecoms. While I know he will understand that telecoms equipment is usually highly resilient and major outages are extremely rare, most telecoms equipment relies on a power supply, which of course can be disrupted by severe weather. On the rare occasion that the sector does experience an outage, there are statutory obligations on telecoms providers to maintain the availability of services and report significant outages to Ofcom. However, in general terms, I give the shadow Minister an absolute assurance of the seriousness with which we take these matters. We will look very carefully at the response and ensure that we draw all the right lessons from it.
UK-EU Common Understanding Negotiations
Mike Wood Excerpts(4 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
We on the Opposition side of the House recognise the importance of giving young people educational opportunities, but it is vital—[Interruption.] Government Members clearly do not recognise the need for schemes to offer genuine value for money. The UK already had the opportunity to remain a member of Erasmus, but it was precisely because the Conservative Government recognised that the scheme did not offer value for money to the taxpayer that we chose not to.
That is why the Conservative Government created the Turing scheme instead—a global programme for young people in the UK that did not require us, one-sidedly, to hand a blank cheque to Brussels. The Turing scheme delivered 43,000 placements around the world last year, 23,000 of which were to learners from disadvantaged backgrounds, at a cost of just over £100 million. Can the Minister confirm that his statement in no way undermines the future of the Turing scheme? Is that scheme guaranteed, or are those opportunities being sacrificed for a smaller number of opportunities available under Erasmus+?
The Minister has confirmed that the UK will pay £570 million to rejoin Erasmus+. We understand that will be paid from existing budgets, but can he tell us where the money is coming from? Is that £570 million being added to the £6 billion special educational needs and disabilities black hole that the Office for Budget Responsibility identified in the education budget? Does the Minister expect more students to take part in the new scheme than the 10,000 previous participants in Erasmus+, or are we paying £570 million for essentially 10,000 placements a year?
The Minister spoke about a fair contribution being a 30% discount. Of course, it is only a matter of weeks since the Government were briefing that a fair contribution would be a 50% discount. They clearly failed in those negotiations. Can the Minister assure us that while he says that he has a discount for the first year, a discount will be available in subsequent years? If those assurances have not yet been received and the EU does not offer a similar deal in future years, is he prepared to walk away?
The Opposition have set out clear tests to ensure that the Government do not roll back on Brexit, including no backsliding on free movement. Can the Minister outline what protections will be put in place to ensure that rejoining Erasmus does not simply mean a return to free movement by the back door for young people? That is particularly important given his complete failure, when asked multiple times, to set out what size of cap he thinks would be appropriate for youth mobility.
Rejoining Erasmus is the Government’s latest attempt to undo Brexit by stealth. That was clear from the outset of these negotiations, when the Government agreed to surrender UK fishing rights to the EU for 12 years, under the pretence that that would
“pave the way for the UK defence industry to participate in the EU’s proposed new…defence fund”.
Yet six months later that deal has collapsed after the EU’s extortionate demands for billions of pounds to join the fund, with no guarantee of any return on investment in the form of procurement. Can the Minister explain to our hard-working fishing industry why they will not be getting their fish back, even though that deal has fallen through?
The British people made a clear decision to take back control in 2016. Despite the Government’s protestations, their approach shows an increasing disregard for that democratic decision.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
If I have got this right, I chose not to sign up to participate in the SAFE—Security Action for Europe—fund because it did not represent value for money, and the Opposition are criticising me for that, but they are also criticising me for signing up to something that is value for money. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman about fish. A big advantage to our fishing sector, which exports 70% of its catch to the EU, is the food and drink agreement that I am going to secure by the time of the next UK-EU summit. That is what will benefit our fishers.
On the hon. Gentleman’s point about the Turing scheme, it is important that I say from the Dispatch Box that any person on the Turing scheme in this academic year will continue to be funded. I have to tell him, however, that his numbers are absolutely all over the place. First, the Erasmus+ scheme has changed significantly since the version that his Government walked away from. Furthermore, do we seriously think that that lot could have secured a 30% discount? Absolutely not.
The one figure that the hon. Gentleman did get right was 43,200, which is the number of people involved in the last year of the Turing scheme. Erasmus is a far bigger scheme. We will expect tens of thousands of young people—100,000-plus—and others to have opportunities from Erasmus. But let me tell the hon. Gentleman this as well: Erasmus is a great deal broader than the Turing scheme in terms of opportunities. The Turing scheme is about colleges, schools and universities. Erasmus+ presents wider opportunities, including youth work, sports and the ability of staff to have professional exchanges. Let me just say, before Conservative Members start talking about the fact that Turing is all around the world, that the grant-making bodies for Erasmus+ in the UK can still allocate 20% of the funding if they want to, if people want to go to other parts of the world as well. What this is doing is vastly increasing the opportunities not just for young people, but for adult learners. If the Conservative position is now to oppose a massive expansion in opportunities for young people, I will welcome that debate at the next election.
Oral Answers to Questions
Mike Wood Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
In October, the Prime Minister called a Downing Street press conference rather than come to this House so that he could tell the nation that digital ID will not be mandatory; it is just that people will not be able to get a job without one. What else will they not be able to do without this apparently voluntary digital ID? If people will not be allowed to get a job without digital ID, can the Minister confirm that they will also be unable to receive any benefits without it?
Josh Simons
Building a new digital credential for UK systems is a major public good that we need to do carefully and take our time over. That is why, as I said, we will launch a major public consultation in the new year. That consultation will include a whole series of questions about the use cases for digital ID. I look forward to working with the shadow Minister and Members across this House on what the new digital credential should do for our citizens.
Mike Wood
The Minister’s answer makes it clear that this announcement was not a policy—it was a late party conference stunt. The Government obviously have not thought it through; it is clear that the Prime Minister lacks the backbone to push back against officials who have taken this awful idea off the shelf once again. The truth is that this is a £1.8 billion solution in search of a problem. The Minister talks about illegal migration, but there is already a legal responsibility to carry out these checks, and the Home Office offers a reliable service. Can he tell us how many people who have passed the Home Office right-to-work check are later found to not have the right to work?
Josh Simons
To be very clear about right-to-work checks: the current system is not fit for purpose. The United Kingdom is out of whack with international peers, and that creates the perception that we have a weak, illegal labour market regime. I am sure that the shadow Minister would not be against toughening up enforcement against illegal working. On the broader benefits of digital ID, in the future economy and state that we need to build, a free digital credential to which every citizen has access is a vital foundational public good for everything that we want our Government and our state to do in the 15 to 20 years ahead. I am proud that this Government are taking on the task of building it.
Draft Infected Blood Compensation Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2025
Mike Wood Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
I rise to speak in support of these regulations, as we set out when the Paymaster General made his statement at the end of October. There are, of course, many things on which we disagree, but this is not one of them. The Opposition will not be confecting differences purely for political benefit when the reality is that there are no real differences of substance between the Government’s position and that of the Opposition, or indeed the previous Government, in this regard.
We welcome the progress made by the Infected Blood Compensation Authority in processing the payments. Victims were told that compensation must be in place without delay, and that is starting to become a reality for those who were infected. Does the Minister have any updates on the likely timetable for compensation for affected people and the estates of those who sadly died before they were able to receive compensation? Has there been any change in that?
In terms of the changes these regulations make, as I said at the end of October, we support the five recommendations that the Government are accepting and legislating on today. We welcome the Minister’s clarification that lifting the HIV start date means it will not matter at which point a victim was infected by HIV, if it was the result of treatment with infected blood or blood products that took place before 1 November 1985.
I am fairly sure I know the answer to this, but can the Minister confirm that this is also the case for people who may have discovered or been informed at a much later date that they were infected, but for whom it is likely that the infection relates to blood products before the relevant date? Similarly, can the Minister confirm that no one who should be eligible will fall through the cracks because of earlier failures in record keeping? This is particularly relevant for those infected as children, whose medical records at that point might have been incomplete.
We need to make sure that they do not miss out on the compensation that they need and deserve. The Minister will be aware of the representations of those who were deliberately infected with haemophilia as a result of studies and their anger over the levels of compensation for deliberate infection. Will the Minister, alongside Sir Brian, review whether the component for deliberate infection is appropriate?
Finally, as we have said a number of times over the last year or so, many victims and their families still feel that they are in the dark, as was identified in the latest report from Sir Brian Langstaff. Will the Minister commit to a clear communication plan and work with IBCA to make sure that there are regular updates—that accessible guidance is provided, in plain English, so that those who ought to be eligible for compensation and their families can access the compensation that they need? There is little point in me detaining the Committee further; we will support these regulations.
Draft Procurement Act 2023 (Specified International Agreements and Saving Provision) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
Mike Wood Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
I thank the Minister for presenting the regulations. His Majesty’s official Opposition support them. Having, as the Minister said, concluded one agreement and very much supporting the second one, which really continues the international trade policy and trend of the previous Government, we certainly will not be dividing the Committee, but perhaps he can just set out the answers to a few questions about some details in the regulations.
If we look at the particular regulation that underpins a lot of the regulation set out here, it generally appears quite technical, particularly in relation to definitions and cross-references. Will the Minister therefore confirm that these measures do not constitute a material policy shift and that the Government have assessed that the changes do not create any unintended consequences for contracting authorities or potential bidders?
On potential bidders, how do the Government intend any changes within the regulations to be communicated to suppliers and potential suppliers based in the UK? When will any updated guidance following from the regulations be published? We are particularly concerned about any impact—not that we expect there to be any dramatic impact—on small and medium-sized enterprises or small employers. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that SMEs and microbusinesses in particular can navigate without an increased administrative burden any transition in the procurement systems covered by the regulations? Have stakeholders been consulted on whether further clarity is required, particularly for SMEs, charities and the voluntary sector suppliers that may be affected?
The regulations are technical, but of course they are important for the integrity of the procurement system, so clarity and consistency remain essential both for contracting authorities and for the many businesses—especially smaller suppliers—that rely on predictable and understandable rules. Therefore, I look forward to the Minister’s responses and to ensuring that these amendments support a smooth and proportionate transition to the new procurement regime as it relates to Kazakhstan and Iraq. There is little further for me to say. We will be supporting the regulations.
Oral Answers to Questions
Mike Wood Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
Article 16 of the Northern Ireland protocol says that where we experience diversion of trade, we may take unilateral action. The Secretary of State will be well aware that three reports in the past month have noticed significant trade diversion affecting trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Will he be clear with the House about just how much trade diversion he is willing to stomach before he uses the powers he has under article 16?
Hilary Benn
There are now 15,000 businesses that have registered under the UK internal market scheme, and 97% of lorries moving from GB to Northern Ireland do not face any in-person checks at all. The goods are flowing and moving. It is, in the end, for businesses to decide to whom they sell and from where they purchase, but the Northern Ireland economy is doing extremely well, which shows that the problems—and there are some—are not affecting its overall strength.
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. He has always been a strong champion on this. Anti-Muslim hatred is abhorrent and has no place in our society. The increase in incidents must be addressed. It is why we are increasing funding to protect mosques and Muslim faith schools across the country. It is why we have announced a new fund to monitor anti-Muslim hatred and support victims, and we continue to work on the definition of anti-Muslim hatred.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Member raises a serious issue. I am not quite sure what he is asking the Government to do—to step in and nationalise it I do not think would be the right thing.
Public Office (Accountability) Bill
Mike Wood ExcerptsMonday 3rd November 2025
(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Public Office (Accountability) Bill 2024-26 View all Public Office (Accountability) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
The Bill is the result of decades of campaigning and struggle by families fighting for answers. The thoughts and hearts of all of us in this House, regardless of party affiliation, are with the 97 victims of the Hillsborough disaster and their families. The tireless work of those families is ultimately responsible for uncovering the truth about Hillsborough and delivering an element of justice for the victims, whose memory was tarnished by the unwillingness of some individuals in authority to tell the truth. The Bill is also testament to the valuable work done by Bishop James Jones and his independent panel, for which we are truly thankful.
The Bill is in no small part down to the effective campaigning of the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne); he has fought for those who joined him in going to Hillsborough on that terrible day in April 1989, but who lost their life, due to the terrible decisions made by the stadium operators and South Yorkshire police.
Hillsborough stands as one of the most obvious and harrowing examples of the British state’s failure to remain accountable, truthful and candid. Unfortunately, it is not the only such example in recent years. We have had the Post Office Horizon scandal, the infected blood scandal, the families of pub bombing victims in Birmingham and Guildford denied justice following police misconduct, and the failure of the British state to properly acknowledge and tackle the rape and grooming gangs that have terrorised communities across the country. Each and every one of these failures undermines the British public’s faith in their Government, and each was a scandal made worse by institutions’ attempts to hide from responsibility, and to put their reputations and interests ahead of transparency and justice in the clearest possible examples of abuse of power. Calls for greater candour and accountability are legitimate and welcome; those of us in this place must always remember that our sole duty is to serve the interests of the British people and to do right by them.
I thank all those hon. and right hon. Members who have contributed to this Second Reading. I welcome the Prime Minister’s confirmation that the Government will table an amendment to extend the duty of candour to cover local inquiries, which was a clear gap in the Bill as introduced. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) spoke about the often heard cry of “never again”. We must make sure that when this Bill enters the statute books, it turns that cry into a reality.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) expressed legitimate concerns about the effectiveness and administration of some public inquiries, and I know those concerns are shared by some Ministers in the Government. The hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) spoke about the need for a change in culture that goes beyond legislation, so that taking responsibility, rather than covering up failings, becomes the norm, and not just a legal requirement. The hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) reminded us of the outrageous experimentation on disabled pupils at Treloar school and the lengths that authorities went to hide responsibility. Hopefully some of the Bill’s measures will be of some help to those pupils.
The hon. Members for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge), for Glasgow East (John Grady) and for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale) spoke movingly about how failings in the NHS were made worse by a lack of openness, and about families simply not feeling heard. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) reminded us of the long battle fought by nuclear test veterans.
As noble as this Bill’s intentions may be, we must be ever vigilant for the unintended consequences of well-intended laws. As this Bill proceeds through the House, we will scrutinise it closely to minimise the harms that may arise. In particular, we must make sure that the Bill does not inadvertently create a situation in which Government and public services can no longer function effectively, not because they are falling foul of the Bill, but because they fear that they may fall foul of it if its provisions are applied in ways that the Government did not intend. We must clarify how this Bill will interface with legal and disciplinary frameworks, including the civil service code. We must clarify how new standards of ethical conduct will interface with those and other frameworks, and we must have a clear definition of what it means to mislead the public.
Under the Bill, that charge of misleading the public carries a criminal sanction. We obviously recognise some of the safeguards that have been included, but they are not as tightly defined as they might be. If politicians are to be able to represent the public effectively, we must be absolutely certain that this definition is watertight, because otherwise the Bill may give rise to a situation whereby legitimate decisions made by Ministers are subject to politically motivated lawfare.
We rightly expect our parliamentarians, officials and Ministers to speak honestly, truthfully and with integrity, whether in the Chamber or outside, but clause 11(3)(a), by defining dishonesty in terms of
“falsehood, concealment, obfuscation or otherwise”,
risks leaving Prime Ministers, other Ministers and even constituency MPs at constant risk of vexatious complaints. We may differ about the adequacy, and even the accuracy, of some of the responses that the Prime Minister gives us at Prime Minister’s questions, but those disagreements must be a matter for the ballot box rather than the courtroom.
We must also have a clear definition of the public interest, which is the idea on which so much of the Bill rests. In our political system, the public interest is not for bureaucrats or judges to decide. The public express their will through the democratic process, and elect Members of Parliament to implement that will on their behalf. Can the Government be sure that the definition of the public interest in the Bill will not conflict with efforts made by future Governments to implement those democratic wishes? It would be profoundly dangerous for any single Government to attempt to define the public interest in a way that would bind future Governments without giving sufficient weight to the role that the public themselves play in determining and articulating that interest.
At their best, public inquiries offer opportunities to genuinely learn rather than to seek retribution; to establish what happened and how, so that action can be taken to stop such events being repeated, more harm being done to more people, more lives being lost unnecessarily, and more futures being stolen away, so that the oft-repeated words “never again”, of which the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough spoke so well, can actually have some meaning. However, that can only happen with honesty, openness and a degree of trust—in short, with candour from all those involved. If this Bill can help to achieve that, it is well worth supporting. That is why, although we will work to tighten some parts at later stages to ensure that it operates properly, we will support it tonight.
Infected Blood Compensation Scheme
Mike Wood Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his statement and for advance sight of it—although just under an hour is not a lot of time to digest 75 pages of documentation, so I will do my best. I join the Minister in acknowledging the work done by Sir Brian Langstaff and his inquiries, as well as the serious improvement in the pace of payments that IBCA has made in recent months. We thank Sir Robert Francis, David Foley, and all their team at IBCA. On behalf of the Opposition, I welcome the measures that the Minister has announced that implement some of Sir Brian’s recommendations from the additional report, particularly those dealing with HIV eligibility start dates, the deeming of severity bands, evidence of the date of diagnosis, affected estates, and bereaved partner support scheme payments.
Turning to the recommendations relating to hepatitis, we of course welcome confirmation that the Government will remove the earnings floor on the supplementary route exceptional loss award. However, I did not hear any specific reference in the Minister’s statement to measures to address recommendation 4(c) of the original report, which deals with effective treatment. Perhaps the Minister could set out how the Government intend to give effect to that recommendation. Similarly, could he set out what measures the Government are taking—beyond the appointment of the new members of the technical expert group that he has announced—in response to recommendation 2(e), which deals with the transparency of scheme design? That is particularly important in light of the inquiry’s worrying finding that victims did not feel that they were being listened to.
I now turn to the recommendations that the Government did not feel able to accept immediately. I welcome the fact that the Minister is consulting on a way forward on those issues; clearly, as I have said, there is a need for transparency and proper consultation. The consultation period will last until the end of January next year. We recognise that there is little that the Minister can do about that clearly defined period, but given the need to address these measures without undue delay, will he ensure that once that consultation period closes, the Government respond swiftly to the consultation paper and introduce any necessary further regulations with maximum speed, so that this House can consider any further measures that are necessary?
More broadly, how are the Government applying the lessons learned from the implementation of payment schemes for people infected to better inform the operation of payments to people affected and to their estates, as he referred to in his statement? What action is the Minister taking with the independent IBCA to ensure that the pace of payments, which has seen welcome progress, continues to accelerate and is not jeopardised by changes to rules and processes?
As I said, Sir Brian’s inquiries have done incredible and invaluable work to give a voice to those who have battled so courageously against decades of injustice, and to ensure that victims and their families have some remedy, although clearly no amount of money can ever reverse the terrible harm done by this scandal over many years. The recommendations in the additional report that Sir Brian published shortly before the summer are an invaluable contribution. Looking forward, there will need to be a degree of policy certainty as we move from a period of review to one of rectification and delivery. That is one reason that the cross-party work, both before and since the election, has been so important to give confidence and certainty. Looking ahead, does the Minister have any indication as to when we might expect the inquiry to draw to a close, and what might the mechanism be for doing so?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for the tone of his remarks. I note what he said about the time he received the statement and other documents, and he knows me well enough by now to know that I have great respect for this House and will always facilitate shadow Ministers having material with plenty of time. I will certainly take that issue away and look at why that happened.
I join the shadow Minister in paying tribute to the work of the inquiry and to Sir Robert Francis and David Foley, IBCA’s chief executive. This House rightly has held me to account for the number of payments. IBCA was running a test-and-learn approach, and I always said to the House that there would be a smaller number that was a representative sample of cases, which would then allow IBCA to scale up exponentially. We are now in that exponential phase—that steep curve. I look every single week at the number of payments, and it is starting to increase significantly. I know that Members across the House will welcome that.
The shadow Minister made a point about treatment for hepatitis. One of the things we are looking at in the consultation is the impact of interferon, which had such a detrimental impact on so many people.
The shadow Minister is right to raise the transparency mechanism. While I do not need a piece of legislation for that, I am looking at that mechanism and want to get it into place as soon as possible.
The shadow Minister asked about the 12-week consultation. The Government will respond to that within 12 weeks, and I will then want to bring forward a fourth set of regulations with the greatest possible speed.
The shadow Minister’s final point was about learning lessons, and that is precisely why I asked Sir Tyrone Urch to carry out his work. First, it was about learning the lessons from what has happened so far and how we can best take things forward. Secondly, it is about the practical steps I can take to assist IBCA with scaling up and making payments to affected people, which will clearly be a far larger number of people for IBCA to deal with.
To finish on a consensual point, the cross-party support on this issue has been important. The continuity between the work I have done and the work of my predecessor as Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) has been hugely important in the delivery of this scheme.
Oral Answers to Questions
Mike Wood Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I know how important face-to-face banking is on our high streets. As my hon. Friend says, we have committed to rolling out 350 banking hubs across the United Kingdom, and over 180 are already open. However, I want to reassure him that 350 is not the limit; although decisions over hubs are taken independently, they can be rolled out wherever a community needs one. I am happy to make sure the relevant Minister follows up with details for him.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
Mr Speaker
Order. The problem is, one or two of you are trying to catch my eye. If we don’t get through this, you won’t get a chance.
Mike Wood
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
The triple lock was a great achievement of the previous Government, and we will be keeping it. From April, pensioners with private pensions as low as £2 a month will be paying income tax for the first time. At last year’s Budget, the Chancellor was clear that extending the freeze on personal allowances would breach Labour’s manifesto commitment. Will the Prime Minister prove the media speculation wrong, keep his promise and guarantee that there will be no extension to the freeze on personal allowances?
The Prime Minister
The freeze was introduced by them. That is why it is coming in next year.
Oral Answers to Questions
Mike Wood Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
Last year, the Government promised us that they were going to slash the size of the civil service, but instead the latest figures showed that the size of the civil service has increased by 7,000 compared with last year. It is not only other Departments that have failed to get a grip: the headcount of the Minister’s own Department is up by 7%. Will the Minister guarantee that when the next set of figures is published, it will show a reduction in the size of the civil service and the size of the Cabinet Office?
Anna Turley
Under the last Tory Government, Boris Johnson said that he would cut the number of people employed by the civil service by 91,000, but that figure went up. Jeremy Hunt said that he would cap numbers in the civil service, but they went up. The Conservatives lost control of the civil service, just as they lost control of our borders, our streets and our prisons, but we are taking action to bring those numbers down.
Mike Wood
I think that the Minister is missing the fact that she is in Government now and has been for well over a year, but the numbers are going up not down, as they promised. The Minister is correct when she says that the civil service must be able to recruit the brightest and the best, but surely she can see that that is not helped when the most senior civil servant, hand-picked by the Prime Minister barely months ago, faces a barrage of media briefings from within Government. Will the Minister and her Department commission an inquiry into the breach of the code of conduct for special advisers following the personal attacks on the Cabinet Secretary, and will she condemn the vicious media briefings that have clearly come from within No.10?
Anna Turley
We have full confidence in the Cabinet Secretary and we condemn all leaks and breaches. We undertake to look into how any leaks from Government take place.