Outsourcing: Government Departments

Mike Wood Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Westminster Hall

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) on securing this debate. He may not be surprised to learn that I do not agree with his general position. I thank the many Members who have contributed to the debate. I must admit that some of the contributions by Government Members left me feeling a little nostalgic, although I suspect that the Prime Minister and some Government Whips might prefer them to keep such views under wraps a little more.

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate on outsourcing, which, when handled well, delivers efficiency, value for money and innovation in the provision of public services. Unfortunately, however, the actions we have seen so far from the Government are further complicating and undermining effective public procurement. Rather than building on the progress made by the previous Government, Labour is making public procurement more burdensome, less efficient and increasingly dictated by trade unions. That will make it more difficult to make outsourcing work for service users and taxpayers.

The Procurement Act 2023 was introduced to ensure a streamlined, modernised and effective procurement system that would deliver better outcomes for taxpayers. The Act was designed to cut red tape, improve transparency and ensure that public contracts were awarded based on value and efficiency, but the new Government have delayed its implementation. They have announced plans for a new national procurement policy statement—

[Grahame Morris]

I am interested in the hon. Member’s contention about value for money. Does he actually believe that the prison maintenance contract delivers value for money for the taxpayer?

[Mike Wood]

Numerous reports, not least by the Institute for Government, have found that, in many areas of Government activity, outsourcing and public procurement from private providers improves service and value for money for the taxpayer. Of course, it can be done badly, and the Probation Service is the obvious example where it clearly never worked. Although the pandemic brought things to a critical point, it was becoming increasingly difficult even before then to argue that that private provision was providing a satisfactory service.

We are still waiting for the national procurement policy statement, less than four weeks before the Procurement Act is due to commence. The new Government claim that the Act, in its current form, does not meet their vision for harnessing public procurement to deliver economic growth, value for money and social value, but it looks increasingly as though what they mean is that they want to use public contracts as a vehicle to expand trade union influence in Government, imposing costly and unnecessary regulatory burdens on businesses. In the absence of a national procurement policy statement, the Government are introducing further restrictions and bureaucracy through what they call “Make Work Pay”, but for a lot of employers that looks a lot like just making jobs more expensive.

Businesses seeking Government contracts are to be required to demonstrate trade union recognition, access for union organisers, collective bargaining arrangements, adherence to so-called fair work standards that go well beyond legal obligations, and other social commitments. Recent parliamentary answers have confirmed that those requirements will apply not only to large firms, but to small and medium-sized enterprises, undoing a lot of the good work in the Procurement Act that aimed to open up public procurement contracts to a wider range of smaller businesses.

This is not about ensuring fair treatment of workers. UK employment law already provides robust protections. This is about allowing unions to dictate the terms of our public procurement, favouring firms that meet ideological criteria rather than those that offer the best value and most efficient service.

[Ian Lavery]

Does the hon. Gentleman think it is right that in certain private companies, individuals are able to claim universal credit, while directors of the very same companies are trousering thousands of pounds, as are the dividend holders? It is a burden on the taxpayer—does he agree?

[Mike Wood]

Businesses have to fulfil their legal obligations. The previous Government introduced the national living wage, which will increase this April under the current Government, and of course where businesses of whatever type are failing to pay the national living wage, there must be proper enforcement and legal consequences.

We need to be clear about what the Government’s changes mean in practice. Instead of being awarded contracts on the basis of cost-effectiveness and efficiency, businesses will have to navigate a minefield of additional requirements, making it harder for SMEs to compete for public contracts. The added complexity will inevitably drive up costs and reduce competition, and it will ultimately mean that taxpayers get less for their money and a poorer service.

Beyond increasing costs and inefficiencies, this approach risks distorting the market by prioritising ideology over quality. Public contracts must be awarded to the best providers, whether in house or private. That means those that offer the most efficient service at the best price, rather than those that can best navigate a politically driven procurement system. The increased focus on trade union influence in procurement raises serious concerns about political favouritism and undermines the principle of fair competition.

[Graham Leadbitter]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mike Wood]

I really need to make progress so that the Minister can respond.

It is particularly troubling that Labour has refused to clarify exactly how the new procurement rules will work in practice. The NPPS, which is meant to lay out the Government’s plans, has yet to be published, leaving businesses uncertain about the future landscape of public contracts. The previous version was published nearly six months before the Procurement Act was due to commence. It is now less than four weeks before the date the Minister indicated that the Act will commence. There is no sign of what the new rules will be, and yet businesses will be expected to adapt.

Furthermore, it is essential to recognise that the regulatory burden placed on firms seeking Government contracts will have a chilling effect on investment, innovation and the growth that I understand the Chancellor is speaking of this morning. If businesses perceive that public procurement is more about politics than performance, they will simply withdraw from bidding for contracts. That will leave fewer providers and make us more reliant on a small number of mega-contractors, reducing competitive pressure to drive efficiencies. That would be disastrous for taxpayers, who deserve the best services at the lowest cost.

The previous Government recognised the need for reform and took decisive action to improve procurement. This Government, on the other hand, are undoing that work by creating a system in which trade unions hold the keys to public contracts and require businesses to comply with unnecessary and costly obligations that do nothing to improve service delivery.

Public procurement should be about securing the best services at the best price for the taxpayer, not about enforcing an ideological agenda. Labour’s approach will lead to inefficiency and waste, and will reduce competition —all at the expense of businesses and the public, who rely on well-managed services. If the Government continue down this path, they risk severely damaging the UK’s ability to run a fair and efficient public procurement system.

I have a number of questions that I hope the Minister will address. When will the Government next update their model services contract guidance and the outsourcing playbook? Are Departments still on track to save £550 million this financial year, as the Government promised they would in November? What steps are the Government taking to ensure that microbusinesses and SMEs are not excluded from bidding for, or engaging with, public sector outsourcing opportunities? What contact has the Minister had with the Business Services Association regarding any updates to the Government’s outsourcing policies? What discussions have she and her colleagues had with colleagues at the Crown Commercial Service regarding the operation of the RM6277 framework? Finally, do the Government still expect the Procurement Act to commence on 24 February? If they do, does the Minister think the very short time that businesses have to adapt between the publication of the policy statement and the commencement of the Act is acceptable?

Outsourcing and public procurement are a real test for this Government. Will they fall back on the ideology of the past or represent the interests of the public going forward? Are they working in the interests of those who use and pay for services, or in the interests of union paymasters?

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

I will now call the Minister to respond. If there is any time left before 11 o’clock, I will invite Andy McDonald to wind up, if he wishes to.

Storm Éowyn

Mike Wood Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for his statement and for providing advance sight of it. I pay tribute to all the emergency services, responders and volunteers who have undertaken, and continue to undertake, action in response to Storm Éowyn. We join the Minister in sending our deepest condolences to those families who are grieving after the tragic deaths in Scotland and the Republic of Ireland.

Red weather warnings are rarely issued, and Storm Éowyn is certainly the worst of its kind for some time. It highlights the importance of work to strengthen preparedness and resilience across the board. I understand that the Government will be undertaking a pandemic preparedness exercise later this year. Are there any plans to undertake a similar exercise for storms and adverse weather, particularly focusing on the use of the emergency alert system that was introduced by the previous Government, its effectiveness, and the protection of critical infrastructure?

On critical infrastructure, in relation to water, what can the UK Government do to help ensure the resilience of those systems that went down over the weekend into the future? Much of the damage has been caused, or worsened, by extensive flooding. I recognise that the Government have established the floods resilience taskforce, but reports suggest that it has met just once since July. That is disappointing, if true, and I hope that the Secretary of State will clarify what actions were taken up as a result of that meeting.

As communities seek to recover and rebuild after Storm Éowyn, many face being hit again by Storm Herminia. What preparations are in place for that storm, and what flooding response preparations are now in place after the weekend?

Storm Éowyn has caused enormous damage right across the United Kingdom, as the Secretary of State said, but Scotland and Northern Ireland were particularly hard-hit. It is imperative that the Government fully understand the challenges faced by devolved authorities in providing adequate funding for storm and flooding preparedness, as well as response. I would appreciate clarity from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on what work is being taken forward under the proper agreements to ensure progress on that.

I would also appreciate clarity on what discussions were held with the devolved Administrations ahead of the storm to co-ordinate responses and ensure that the proper preparations were in place. As the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster set out in his statement, winds of more than 90 mph left a quarter of all homes in Northern Ireland, as well as many businesses, without power. Labour made a commitment in its manifesto to support the Northern Ireland Executive to improve public services in the Province. If ever there was a test of the Government’s commitment to supporting the Executive and public services in Northern Ireland, it is now, after this horrific storm.

We understand that, under mutual aid arrangements, the UK Government are providing some targeted support to Northern Ireland. Can the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster unpack that further? I think he said in his statement that 102 engineers from Great Britain were currently in Northern Ireland to get power restored to affected communities. Can he confirm that figure? How many more are due to arrive, and when will they arrive? Can he confirm, given the increased frequency of this type of weather incident, what action he is taking to ensure that Northern Ireland Electricity has the in-house skills and capacity needed to respond to similar events in future? Is NHS England offering any support to the health service in Northern Ireland?

Storm Éowyn hit every nation in our United Kingdom. We have seen travel and power problems, along with the tragic loss of young life in Scotland. In Wales, the storm has prompted school closures and yet more outages. Can the Minister assure the House that he is impressing upon his colleagues in Cardiff Bay and Holyrood the need to make sure that local authorities and local health boards are properly resourced to deliver preparedness and resilience services in their communities, using the record block grants provided by the previous Government and the package announced by the Chancellor in last autumn’s Budget? Our thoughts and prayers are with all those communities affected by Storm Éowyn and with all those working so tirelessly to help them.

[Pat McFadden]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his response and, in particular, for his tribute to the emergency service workers and engineers who have worked so hard over recent days. He asked a number of questions, and I will try to go through them.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether there would be a further test of the national emergency alert system. Yes, there will be. I announced that to the House about 10 days ago. There will be a second nationwide test later this year. He asked about resilience meetings. I can assure him that there has been more than one meeting on resilience over the past seven months, and I take part in them regularly. He asked about co-operation with the devolved Governments. There has been good co-operation with the devolved Governments in recent days both at the official level—we have had regular contact over the weekend—and also at the ministerial Cobra meeting that I chaired on Saturday evening, which involved the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland and the First Minister of Scotland.

The hon. Gentleman asked about financial support. Both Northern Ireland and Scotland received significant increases in their budgets. I am pleased that he acknowledged—a rare acknowledgment from the Opposition Front Bench—the generosity of the settlement as a result of the Budget from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor a few months ago. He asked about the number of engineers. The latest figure I have is 102, but the number moves around.

As I said in my statement, we have had two storms and floods and power outages in different parts of the country. The principal that my officials and I have tried to instil is this: as much help as possible, as quickly as possible, to the areas where it is needed. That is what has driven our response over the weekend and through today.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Wood Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

In recent weeks, in response to written parliamentary questions, the Cabinet Office has refused to commit to updating Parliament on the status of the targets in this plan; refused to publish information on the delivery board monitoring; refused to have an independent review and audit of the targets and to publish an annual cost analysis of them; refused to publish a risk register on meeting the targets; refused to publish an annual report; and refused to publish a public dashboard. At the same time, Ministers have been unable to explain how a series of targets in the plan will be measured, so will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster explain whether this a sign that his Department is being obstructive and evasive, or that the plan has not been thought through beyond the slogans?

[Pat McFadden]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place. If he wants to know what the targets are, I suggest that he reads the plan for change; they are set out very carefully in it. On the lists of processes, I said that we were focused on outcomes. That is why today we have announced reform of the judicial review process to stop repeated, and often lengthy and hugely expensive, actions that delay important investment projects that are in the national interest. I would have thought that he would have welcomed that.

General Election

Mike Wood Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2025 Westminster Hall

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

I begin by congratulating the organiser of this petition, who is my constituent in Kingswinford and South Staffordshire, Michael Westwood. The hon. Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) suggested that this petition was motivated by political partisanship, and she seemed to suggest that it was the result of foreign interference. As far as I know, Mr Westwood is not, and has never been, a member of any political party.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

What I said was that it was misinformation, as well as foreign interference and politicising. I mentioned those three things, not just one.

[Mike Wood]

I am not sure that has entirely helped her case. There is certainly no reason to imagine that Mr Westwood was in any way influenced by any foreign state or other foreign actor. He is the owner of a small business—

[Yasmin Qureshi]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mike Wood]

In just a moment. He is the owner of a small business in the Black Country who has seen the impact that Labour’s broken promises are already having on his business, others like his, and the wider economy. The hon. Lady really owes Mr Westwood an apology, which I hope she will deliver in private after this debate. If she wishes to deliver it in public during the debate, I will of course give way.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

On a point of order, Ms Harris. At no time did I say that the individual constituent was being influenced by a foreign—[Interruption.] No, I did not say that. I said that the petition on its own, as it was sold, has been motivated by a number of factors. At no time did I attribute anything to the individual constituent of the hon. Gentleman.

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

Thank you, Ms Qureshi. Your point has been made and noted.

[Mike Wood]

I think the words speak for themselves, and Mr Westwood is sitting there having brought the petition forward and gained 3 million signatures. The signatures reflect the strength of the public’s dissatisfaction, frustration and betrayal with the Labour Government’s failure to uphold the promises they made during the election campaign.

Political parties are elected based on manifestos that outline their vision and commitments to the public. When those promises are not fulfilled or, worse, are abandoned, trust between the electorate and the Government erodes. Voters invest not only their votes but their hopes for the future in the Government they elect. When those promises are broken, as they so clearly have been here, and when hopes are dashed by the Government going back on the platform on which they were so recently elected, then people have every right to feel betrayed.

People feel betrayed by a Government who categorically promised not to increase national insurance contributions but within months had hiked that tax, threatening wage growth for workers and hammering small businesses in particular. They feel betrayed by a Prime Minister who challenged his predecessor at Prime Minister’s questions to rule out restricting winter fuel payments but within weeks of entering Downing Street had taken those same payments away from 90% of pensioners.

They feel betrayed by a Government who promised not to change agricultural property relief but then scaled back that relief, putting family farms at risk, many of which have been farmed for generations. They feel betrayed by a Government who promised to deliver the fastest growing economy in the G7, but took an economy that was growing faster than other countries in the G7 and turned it into one with no growth at all.

The Labour party knew full well what the situation was before the election, yet it cynically chose not to make its unpopular plans public. They waited until they were in power. Rather than being honest with the public in advance, they ducked the choice and took the easy route instead. Few people will imagine that this petition or debate might lead to an early election. Sadly, it is not going to happen. But the petition is another clear sign of the betrayal felt by so many voters and the collapse in trust and support that the Government were lent last summer.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister without Portfolio (Ellie Reeves)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris.

I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for moving the motion today. He did so on behalf of the signatories of the e-petition that asks for a general election, and I welcome the fact that the creator of the petition has been able to listen to this debate in the Public Gallery. I also welcome back to the House all Members who have spoken in this debate and wish you all a happy new year. I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to this petition debate on behalf of the Government.

I have yet to determine whether the Leader of the Opposition has added her name to the petition, following her comments at her third outing at Prime Minister’s questions. However, I must say that opposition appears to suit her extremely well. I wish her and her colleagues many more happy years on the Opposition Benches, signing petitions to their hearts’ content.

As hon. Members may be aware, I served as Labour’s deputy national campaign co-ordinator in the run-up to the general election; the prospect of another general election so soon after the last one—and a return to 5am daily starts—fills me with what I can only describe as joy. Thankfully, as a number of hon. Members have said today, our political system does not work on the basis that those who do not like the result of any particular election are granted a rerun. In the words of the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), “You back the will of the people and the losers have to consent to the winners. That is how democracy works.” Without such a system, my party would no doubt have been tempted to request a rematch on many elections in recent years.

Of course, the lesson that we learned, which the Conservative party shows no sign of learning, is that the route back to government lies not in signing petitions calling for another general election but in facing up to the reasons for losing and fixing them. That is what we did under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and it is why six months ago we were elected with the largest majority that any party has secured since 1997.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton and Clyde Valley (Imogen Walker) said, we were elected with a clear mandate for change. That is what we are delivering. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) said, this Government have already achieved more in our first six months in office than the previous Government managed in their 14 years in power.

The Chancellor delivered a Budget that stabilised the economy, prevented a return to austerity and protected working people’s payslips. As my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) said, we have announced £22 billion more for the NHS and ended the strike by doctors. We are increasing the schools budget by more than £2 billion. We have set up GB Energy and lifted the ban on onshore wind to help to deliver clean power by 2030.

[Mike Wood]

I thank the Minister for giving way. She refers to the promises made about GB Energy. Obviously, before the election the Labour party promised that its plans would result in energy costs for households being reduced by £300. When does she expect energy prices to be £300 lower?

[Ellie Reeves]

Achieving our target of clean energy by 2030 will not only give us energy security, so that we are not at the whim of tyrants such as Putin, but will help us to meet our targets for net zero and give consumers energy security. That is why it is central to what the Labour Government are trying to achieve and why it is one of our core missions.

We have also set up Border Security Command to smash the gangs and returned almost 13,500 people with no right to be here. We have published our national policy planning framework to pave the way for 1.5 million homes in this Parliament, accompanied by the infrastructure to support them. We have introduced legislation to deliver the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation and to transform the experience of private renting, which many hon. Members have spoken about today. And, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern), among others, has said, all that has been against an extremely challenging backdrop.

Of course, no Government choose the circumstances in which they come to office, but there is no doubt that the previous Administration left us with the worst inheritance of any post-war Government, as many of my hon. Friends have noted today: a £22 billion black hole in the public finances—not a “management challenge” as the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) would like to have us believe, but a wrecking of the public finances by the previous Conservative Government; the worst Parliament on record for living standards; an unprecedented slowdown in wage growth; NHS waiting lists at 7.6 million, with 300,000 people waiting longer than a year for treatment; new home approvals that had dropped to record lows; higher energy bills and a weakening of our energy security; shoplifting at record highs and knife crime that had risen by 86% since 2015; and an open-borders policy. They promised to reduce net migration to under 100,000 and left us with a figure almost 10 times higher. They do not like us talking about it—they groan and chunter—but that is the reality of their record.

Of course, all that has meant that the Government have had to take hard decisions. Not all of those will be popular with everyone, but we will not shy away from making the big calls that are right for the country’s future, because that is what any responsible Government must do. We are not stopping there. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) mentioned, in our Plan for Change, published last month, we set out what we will deliver for the British people during this Parliament. It starts with raising living standards in every part of the United Kingdom, so that working people have more money in their pockets, no matter where in the country they live. We will also build 1.5 million homes and fast-track planning decisions on at least 150 major infrastructure projects. That is more than in the last 14 years combined.

A healthy economy must be built on a healthy population, which is why the Prime Minister set out our elective reform plan to tackle waiting list backlogs through millions of more appointments, so that the NHS once again meets the 18-week standard for planned treatment. Feeling safe in our communities is a fundamental right for every citizen. That is why we are providing 13,000 additional officers, PCSOs and special constables in neighbourhood teams in England and Wales, so that every community has a named officer to turn to. Our Plan for Change also commits us to secure home-grown energy while protecting bill payers. We want to be on track for clean power by 2030. Finally, we are giving children the best start in life by ensuring that a record percentage of five-year-olds in England are ready to learn when they start school. That is a priority for this Government.

That is the change that the country voted for so decisively last year. That is the change we are delivering and that is what we will carry on doing. The House returned from the Christmas recess only today, so I had hoped to be able to carry through into the new year the spirit of peace on earth and good will towards all colleagues from all parties. But I am afraid that I must disappoint those who, only six months after the general election, now want a rerun. They are, of course, entitled to voice their opinions, and this Government are committed to serving everyone in the country to the best of our ability, no matter who they voted for, but, having secured such a resounding victory at last year’s general election, we have not only the right but the responsibility to implement our programme and the change that the country voted for. That is what we will do, and when the next election eventually comes, we will be proud to stand on our record.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Wood Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise the issue of very high standards of animal welfare in food production. This Government will prioritise that in trade policy, unlike the Conservatives who, when they were in government, negotiated free trade agreements that consistently undermined agriculture in the UK.

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

We all support efforts to remove unnecessary trade barriers, but we must also be clear with our European partners on what we cannot accept. What is the Paymaster General prepared to say is off the table: dynamic alignment, British fishing rights, or maybe asylum burden-sharing?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The Labour party manifesto set out our red lines in this negotiation. We will not go back to the battles of the past. We will not return to the single market. We will not return to the customs union. We will not return to freedom of movement. What we will do is negotiate with the European Union to make the British people safer and more secure, so we have closer law enforcement co-operation. We will negotiate to reduce trade barriers to make the British people more prosperous.

NATO and European Political Community Meetings

Mike Wood Excerpts

Monday 22nd July 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am proud of the commitment that we already make to NATO on 2%. As would be expected, we did have a discussion at the NATO council on the need for all NATO members to make that contribution and to increase their contribution, and there was a commitment to do so. Our commitment to 2.5% will be set out, and the path will be set out, by the Chancellor at a future fiscal event.

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

Can the Prime Minister confirm that in seeking to reset Britain’s relationship with the European Union, his Government will not accept the automatic application of EU rules in Britain unless they have been specifically agreed by this Parliament?

Covid-19 Inquiry

Mike Wood Excerpts

Friday 19th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Pat McFadden]

I echo my hon. Friend’s tribute to the work of the NHS staff in his constituency. RAAC in public buildings is part of the Government’s inheritance. Just because the problem has slipped down the news agenda somewhat, that does not mean that it has gone away. In time, we will have to address it to ensure that such buildings—whether housing accommodation or public buildings—are safe for people to live in, work in and be treated in.

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

I congratulate the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on his new role and welcome the tone of his statement. The report is a stark reminder—if any were needed—that even the most eminent and public-spirited scientists can occasionally be wrong when groupthink affects assumptions. What can the Government do to ensure that Ministers and parliamentarians have access to the widest possible range of advice—including, where appropriate, dissenting voices—across a whole range of issues?

[Pat McFadden]

The hon. Member is right that groupthink is identified in the report, so it is important for the Government to have access to the widest range of advice, but no part of that, for me or the Government, will be about engaging in anti-science rhetoric or anything of that nature. A diversity of views, yes; a denial of the facts, no.

Tributes to Her Late Majesty the Queen

Mike Wood Excerpts

Saturday 10th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

It is a privilege to pay tribute, on behalf of people in Dudley South, to our much-loved late monarch, Queen Elizabeth, and to offer our condolences to His Majesty the King, and to the royal family.

There is a poem popular at funerals that begins,

“Do not weep that I have gone,

but rejoice that I have been.”

It seems appropriate, for while we grieve for the loss of a beloved sovereign, we rejoice at all that she has given to us, our country, and the Commonwealth. Whether through providence or good fortune, we are blessed to have been granted such selfless service from one of the world’s great leaders for so very long, but it is not just because of her longevity that she will surely be remembered, long after we are gone, as Elizabeth the Great, to use the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson).

Her late Majesty has guided our country since its rebuilding after the ravages of war, and since rationing was still in place, and saw it become a modern, 21st-century society. She took a disintegrating empire and created a strong Commonwealth family of nations. She was integral to our national identities, and embodied so much of what we like to think of as particularly British values and qualities. She united communities and helped to heal divisions between countries and Governments. Queen Elizabeth will be remembered for her contribution to every part of our national life, for she not only reigned over us but was there alongside us. She celebrated with us during times of national jubilation, and she provided comfort and constancy at times of great challenge. She met more people than possibly anybody else in history, and for all who met her, it was an experience that they never forgot.

Her late Majesty visited Brierley Hill, which is now part of my constituency, in 1957, not long after the start of her long reign. It was the first of three visits to Dudley borough and, 65 years later, people still have vivid memories of the day that the Queen came to town. More recently, as a student barrister, I was privileged to meet her during a training weekend at the Westminster estates, and I can only hope that the Prime Minister and other Ministers were more coherent when they were sworn into the Privy Council than I suspect I was on that day.

The Queen has been such a central part of our national life for so long that, even now, it is difficult to truly accept that she is gone. May she rest in peace and rise in glory. Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth, His Majesty the King and the royal family will always remain in our thoughts, in our prayers and in our hearts. God save the King.

UK Energy Costs

Mike Wood Excerpts

Thursday 8th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

The speed and scale of the support announced by the Prime Minister is hugely welcome and, obviously, hugely necessary for the many households that simply could not have afforded energy bills of £3,500. Together with the £400 payments to each household, the £650 to those on low incomes and the £300 to pensioner households, it will make a real difference. I hope that we can have some clarification on the position of those residential properties that are on commercial meters, perhaps because they were converted from commercial businesses.

The support will also make a real difference to many businesses, whether they are energy-intensive businesses, such as those in ceramics and glassmaking in my constituency, or whether they are in hospitality. Similarly, perhaps we can have further clarification on the position for those businesses that have recently had to enter into new contracts. Will they still be able to switch to the new price cap or the support that has been announced?

Let me deal with the criticisms that have been made. There is some superficial political attraction to extending the windfall tax—of course, we already have a windfall tax set at 25% on top of the 40% tax already paid by British oil and gas producers. The attraction is more superficial and political than real and effective, because the revenue that an extension would raise would be small in comparison with the cost of the necessary support. It would affect less than half of the oil and gas we use in the UK, because that is what is produced in the UK. Making UK oil and gas production less competitive will, in the medium and long term, reduce our energy security at the worst possible time. That is something that we cannot afford.

It has also been suggested that the package will affect price signals. As a reformed economist, I know that economists can sometimes dwell a bit too much on good theory and ignore the real world, but I find it hard to credit that people would be less careful with their energy when the price cap is at £2,500 than they would be if it were £1,000 higher. Clearly there would be a huge impact if energy were free, but we are already at a level at which people are being very careful with what they use.

This is the right package, and it is an effective package. We need to get it into the pockets of households and businesses—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order.

Confidence in Her Majesty’s Government

Mike Wood Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

Yes, this House can have confidence in Her Majesty’s Government, because faced with unprecedented challenges over the past three years, it has got far more of the important decisions right than wrong. Have there been mistakes? Of course. I am not aware of any Government, of any nation, even in the most benign times, who could claim to have made none. Of course, these have not been benign times. On the big questions facing the Government, our country is in a better position, with the Prime Minister having been in charge for the past three years, than it would have been in if the Leader of the Opposition had had his way.

On the decision to respect the referendum result, the Prime Minister broke the deadlock over Brexit that threatened to leave the country paralysed with indecision. There are still important issues to resolve, but it is clear that any of the five Conservative candidates to replace him will continue that work, and will secure Brexit, not reverse it. We know what the Leader of the Opposition wanted to do if he became Brexit Secretary in 2019: hold another referendum to overturn the first one. We know what he promised Labour party members in order to become its leader: free movement across the EU. However, he is now telling voters that he would not take us back into the EU internal market. People are bound to ask: who is he telling the truth to? This Government and this Prime Minister called it right.

Going into the global pandemic, the Government recognised that normal procurement and distribution systems would not get personal protective equipment to the people who needed it most urgently. The Leader of Opposition attacked the Prime Minister for putting in place too many checks, being too slow, and not awarding contracts quickly enough. Later, that criticism was reversed; suddenly there were insufficient checks and bureaucracy. Again, the Government called it right and struck the correct balance. They put in place the biggest job and business protection schemes in British peacetime history to make sure that our economy could build back once the need for lockdowns had passed: 9 million workers’ wages were paid; nearly 3 million self-employed workers were helped; and businesses right across our economy were supported. If the Leader of the Opposition had had his way, and the plans of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) had been put in place, bankrupting the nation, we simply would not have been able to borrow the money for that emergency help.

Back when a covid vaccine looked a distant prospect, the Prime Minister and the Government backed a range of potential vaccines, as well as Kate Bingham’s superb taskforce, which the Opposition decried as waste and cronyism. The Opposition were wrong; the Prime Minister was right; and Britain got more vaccines more quickly than any other European country.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mike Wood]

I really do not have time.

It was the Prime Minister’s personal intervention—he sent back early drafts of the roll-out strategy—that brought together the NHS, the armed forces and the private sector to get vaccines out quicker than other large countries did.

We can be proud that when Russian troops invaded one of our European partners, our Prime Minister did so much to lead international support for Ukraine. It is simply not credible to imagine that Britain would have stood as firmly against Russian aggression if it had been led by a man whose response to an assassination attempt on the streets of Salisbury was to demand that evidence be sent to Moscow.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

Was it the right response to that poisoning to fix a meeting with a former intelligence agent of the KGB—a meeting without officials, minutes, or any report to this House of what the hell happened?

[Mike Wood]

I will tell the right hon. Gentleman what the right response was: it was to co-ordinate the biggest diplomatic response since the end of the cold war. The Prime Minister, then Foreign Secretary, got more diplomatic responses than have been seen in decades. The Prime Minister has many achievements of which he should be proud. His successor will have a strong foundation to build on, thanks to the decisions that he has taken over the past three years.

[Mims Davies (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mike Wood]

I really should not.

It is for that reason, and many others, that the House should continue to have confidence in Her Majesty’s Government.