Oral Answers to Questions
Mike Wood Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
The UK has become a global leader in agri-tech and particularly selective breeding, largely because of our flexible regulatory framework, including the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023. That would not have happened if we were still members of the European Union. The BioIndustry Association says that dynamic alignment would threaten UK leadership in biotech innovation. Will the Minister commit to securing a carve-out for precision breeding so that our success in this vital sector is not threatened by new or future EU legislation?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The common understanding agreed between the UK and the EU last May provides for carve-outs, subject to negotiation. But if the hon. Gentleman seriously thinks that all the export costs and fees that businesses are currently paying, which the SPS agreement will take away, should continue, he should say so.
Mike Wood
I think the House and the public outside will have heard that the Minister is refusing to give that commitment to the representatives of this vital sector. However, he will know that the high cost of fertilisers is one of the biggest pressures on British farming and food prices. Raising carbon prices to the level of the EU’s carbon border adjustment mechanism is projected to add around £100 a tonne to that cost. At a time of high food costs and squeezed food security, does he really think that now is a sensible time to hammer British farming yet again?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
That is an absolutely absurd question. The hon. Gentleman is asking that question when his party’s position is to keep in place all the fees that we currently have to pay on exports to the EU. He also talks about the emissions trading system linkage. Without mutual exemptions from the carbon border adjustment mechanism, businesses will have to pay around £700 million in carbon taxes. The consequence of his party’s position is that they would have to pay them.
Pension Schemes
Mike Wood Excerpts(1 week, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
I begin by paying tribute to our fantastic public servants, civil servants and postal workers. The vast majority give so much in service of our country and the general public. This week, perhaps more than any other, is a reminder that it is Ministers’ responsibility to provide the political leadership so that those workers can deliver. The Minister’s decision to terminate the Royal Mail statutory pension scheme is enormously consequential and will be welcomed by many in this House, but more so by our many retired postal workers.
While I appreciate being given advance sight of today’s statement, it does seem that the Minister, particularly in regard to the civil service pension scheme, has come to the House with more of a plan than a statement. It is clear that the current situation, as the Minister said, is the culmination of a series of entirely unforced errors by Capita. Its failure to adequately administer the CSPS has caused significant financial distress to thousands of former public servants, such as my constituent Chris. He has found himself without the pension he was relying on at just the time that his wife has had to step back from work after a cancer diagnosis.
These people worked hard and planned responsibly for retirement, on the basis that the CSPS would be there for them when they needed it. Capita’s failures have left them anxious, frustrated and, in many cases, desperately out of pocket, but in all too many cases that I am aware of, Capita has been utterly unresponsive. Sadly, the constituents and others from around the country who have contacted me about Capita simply would not recognise the Minister’s claim of answer times being down to two minutes. This is not the way to reward a career of dedicated public service.
Last year, the National Audit Office highlighted that Capita had failed to meet three of the six key transition milestones that had been due by March 2025. All those milestones related to scheme design and operational readiness. In October last year—two months before Ministers had to make a final decision on the transition to Capita—the Public Accounts Committee noted that Capita had missed milestones to deliver its IT systems. The Committee called on the Cabinet Office to fully develop contingency plans before making a final decision about whether Capita should take over administration on 1 December last year.
The Minister’s Department confirmed that—four months after the transition was completed—Capita had still not met three transition milestones, while one was only partially met It is only at this point that the Minister has brought forward the contingency plans—the same contingency plans that the Public Accounts Committee recommended months before—but the warning signs were there, and they should have been clear and obvious. Despite that, last November, a full year and a half after the Government took office, they wrote to trade unions, confirming that Ministers were pressing ahead with Capita’s contract..
We all agree that it is in everyone’s interests that the operational stability of the CSPS be restored as quickly as possible. After all, Capita won the contract because of the failure of the previous MyCSP contract, and clearly a further change would mean more disruption, causing further harm to those who have already been so badly impacted. Ministers must ensure that Capita meets its contractual obligations consistently, and that any penalty clauses in the contract that can be enforced are enforced, to allow compensation to be paid.
The Minister has some questions to answer. For those who are missing out because of Capita’s failings, will the Minister unequivocally commit to delivering a functioning service in the timeframe that he has set himself? Will he confirm that his Department has delivered the standardised mitigation letter that CSPS members can share with lenders to explain their temporary financial difficulties? That was promised last month; has it been delivered? I understand that there will be a commercial session on 28 April to discuss the penalties that Capita is facing, and what officials have called the “wider commercial position”. Will the Minister be attending in person? Will he commit to updating the House at the earliest opportunity, following that meeting? Will he elaborate on exactly what his officials mean by Capita’s “wider commercial position”?
Finally, and most importantly, what contingency plans has the Minister put in place in case it becomes necessary to terminate Capita’s contract for the CSPS, just as he has today terminated its contract for the Royal Mail scheme?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
First of all, I echo the shadow Minister’s tribute to public servants, including his constituent Chris; I am very sorry to hear about his wife’s cancer diagnosis. I welcome what I think was his support for my decision to terminate the Royal Mail statutory pension scheme contract. On the civil service pension scheme, he asked about a plan; I have been implementing a plan, and I have come here to update the House on its implementation. He also talked about the contract. The Capita pension scheme contract was awarded by the previous Government in November 2023 on a long-term basis. That is what I inherited and have been trying to deal with. He talked about the point of transition; what I did at the point of transition was get in the Capita chief executive and the Cabinet Office permanent secretary to go through these matters, and to seek assurances. I am afraid to say that the assurances given have not been met.
The shadow Minister talked about not meeting milestones; I can assure him that milestone payments have been withheld, and I will not hesitate to use the commercial levers in the contract to drive performance. I am absolutely clear about the restoration of service by the end of June; that is what I am holding Capita to. He also talked about MyCSP. I have said that we are reserving rights under both these contracts, with regard to the backlog that was left by MyCSP and how Capita has dealt with it since. In relation to MyCSP, there is also an option to pursue a parent company guarantee, and he can be assured that I will explore all possible legal options to ensure that the service that public servants rightly deserve—not just in retirement, but in very difficult circumstances, such as death in service—is being provided sensitively.
The shadow Minister asked about forthcoming meetings and updates. I will consider the appropriate steps to take, and will update the House, and Members from across the House when they write to me.
Government Procurement Strategy
Mike Wood Excerpts(1 week, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) on securing this urgent question—I know how rare it is for a Government Parliamentary Private Secretary. [Interruption.] She is not any more—I apologise. I welcome the Government’s ambition to modernise public procurement, but ambition, as ever, must be matched by delivery. There are a number of questions that the Minister must answer today.
The Government promised transparency through a new online register of commercial agreements. When precisely will that register be live, and will it be comprehensive from day one? Ministers often speak of backing small business. Will the Minister publish in a single, accessible place every Department’s SME target, its latest outturn and whether it is on or off track? On prompt payment, how many suppliers have actually been excluded from major contracts for failing to meet the required standards? If this strategy is truly about value for money, why have the Government still not resolved the fragmentation, poor-quality frameworks and poor use of data and technology that were identified by the National Audit Office?
On national security, contracting authorities are now required to assess risks not just from prime contractors, but from associated persons and subcontractors. How many procurements have been referred for national security consideration, and how many suppliers have been excluded or challenged as a result? What assurances can the Minister give that public contracts are not still flowing into supply chains with links to hostile states? What assessment has the Minister made of the EU’s emerging “Buy European” policies? Is that not a protectionist barrier by the European Union?
Finally, if social value is now mandatory at 10%, what assessment has been made of the risk that it adds cost and complexity, particularly for SMEs? I know that the House will want clear answers.
Chris Ward
I thank the hon. Member for those questions—let me try to answer a few of them.
First, on SMEs and Department spend, as I say, part of the aim of this package is to support SMEs and ensure that they have a greater chance of winning contracts. We did publish the departmental spends the day before recess. I know that there was a lot going on, but we have published them; they are there. They show an ambitious step forward. I believe that around £7 billion of Government contracts will go to SMEs as a result of those changes. I am proud of what we are doing; it is the first time that the Government have done it. We have helped drive that through and have worked hard on that.
The hon. Member asked about “Buy European”. That is not in conflict with any of our international agreements or, obviously, with our negotiations with the EU that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office is leading on, and we work closely on that. At the heart of this package is a recognition that we need to use our procurement budget within international law and international regulations to do more to support our industries. That is the right thing to do, and I hope that we can get cross-party support.
The hon. Member asked about social value. Again, I think he was implying that we are making this mandatory. It is already mandatory and it is already weighted at 10% within the contracting system. I am not changing that; what I am saying is that I am changing the definition of social value so that it does more to support communities and to ensure that it really works, so there is no change on that.
The hon. Member asked me a couple of specific questions about national security. I will get back to him if that is okay, but in general terms, I hope that we can get cross-party support on this. The Procurement Act 2023 was passed with cross-party support and was a step forward, but this is the next big step in trying to ensure that we do much more with that budget to support Britain.
Oral Answers to Questions
Mike Wood Excerpts(1 week, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
Queen Elizabeth II devoted her life to public service. As we mark the 100th anniversary of her birth, I am delighted that her extraordinary reign will be marked by a permanent memorial.
In recent days we have seen a series of despicable antisemitic arson attacks. With additional funding to deploy specialist officers, a fundamental reset of how we counter extremism and action to tackle the poison of antisemitism in our schools, our colleges and the NHS, we will do everything in our power to keep British Jews safe, and I am sure the whole House will join me in standing with our Jewish community. There is no place in British life for antisemitism.
Today my thoughts are also with the family of Stephen Lawrence, murdered in a racist attack 33 years ago today. We honour his legacy in the fight against racism and in providing opportunity for every young person.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Mike Wood
Can the Prime Minister deny that Downing Street considered appointing Matthew Doyle to a diplomatic position?
The Prime Minister
Matthew Doyle worked for many years in public service for me as Prime Minister and other Ministers. When people leave roles in any organisation, there are often conversations about other roles that they want to apply for, but nothing came of this.
Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment
Mike Wood Excerpts(1 week, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matt Western
In a moment—I am just beginning to make my speech. There is the point about some sort of conspiracy or cover-up at No. 10 on which I can disabuse the Leader of the Opposition. The point is to differentiate between the team around the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister himself.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
Will the hon. Member give way on that point?
Matt Western
I want to allow others in.
The Prime Minister clearly delegated responsibilities to his chief of staff. It may be that the Leader of Opposition missed the fact that the Prime Minister sacked that—[Interruption.]
Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)
I want to address three aspects in my remarks: first, the appointment of Peter Mandelson in the first instance; secondly, the approach taken by the Prime Minister as details have emerged over the last few months; and finally, the vetting process overall.
The debate so far has been characterised by collective amnesia on the Opposition Benches. We have seen some amateur dramatic theatrics, and the leader of the Liberal Democrats has demonstrated why he is such a risk to trade and industry with one of our largest trading partners. We have seen the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who sits on the Opposition Benches, choosing to lecture Labour Members about traditions in the Labour party. We have even seen some of my hon. Friends, whose experience of No.10, I suspect, has been purely about attacking No.10 or in a disciplinary capacity, claiming to have real insight into the culture there.
At the core of the current debate is the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as the UK’s ambassador to the USA. Clearly, Peter Mandelson’s background of resigning twice from a ministerial office has been a matter of public record, but while there are other allegations about his conduct, not all of them were in the public domain at the time. Many recent revelations have led to his dismissal from the post of ambassador, action in relation to his peerage, and referral to the police, which is an ongoing process.
It is clear to all that Peter Mandelson should never have been appointed to the role. While that is the case, the apology offered by the Prime Minister on repeated occasions in this House and outside has been full, wholesome and without equivocation.
Most importantly, the Prime Minister has repeatedly and rightly apologised to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein for making the appointment in the first instance.
Gurinder Singh Josan
No, I will not.
While the initial appointment has been, and I suspect will continue to be, a matter of debate, the Prime Minister’s apology cannot be faulted.
Dr Gardner
I apologise, because I struggle with my hearing. I did not pick up everything that the hon. Lady said, but I will come to the vetting and security policy in a second. I hope that might deliver an answer for her.
Conservative Members are quibbling about the process, but I remind them that the policy of the FCDO being able to grant vetting, contrary to the advice of UKSV, has been running for many years under successive Governments. This Prime Minister and this Government are now reviewing the process, and I will reiterate the key points. Mandelson should never have been appointed as our ambassador. The Prime Minister has repeatedly acknowledged that and repeatedly apologised.
Dr Gardner
I am conscious of the time. We have a seven-minute guideline, so I will carry on.
It is clear that Foreign Office officials granted developed vetting security clearance to Mandelson and never told Ministers that they had done so, against the recommendations of the vetting agency. That is shocking, and any reasonable person would have assumed that the information would have been proffered without asking. The policy is wrong. It should change, and as a result of the review, hopefully it will change. This Government—still less than two years old—will not let such a policy continue. I am pleased that the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister has immediately suspended the ability of the Foreign Office to grant security clearances. My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen is not in his place, but I understand that he asked for that to be a short-term response for other security reasons, and I acknowledge his point.
Thanks to the previous Government, the cryptocurrency-fuelled damage of Reform and, of course, the economic suicide of Brexit, which both the Conservatives and Reform are responsible for, people are fed up and trust in politics is at an all-time low. Indeed, the Prime Minister recognises this and understands that recent revelations have further damaged that trust, and I acknowledge that. However, I stress that politics focused on people, not political process, and on the decent, hard-working people of our country, who are thankfully still at peace due to the strength of this Prime Minister, can be a force for good.
The Conservatives are still addicted to chaos and game playing, and seek scraps of political capital where they can get them. I suggest that they have flogged this issue as much as they can. They need to focus on rebuilding their dying party and apologise to the people. This Prime Minister and this Government are focused on rebuilding this country—the country the Conservatives broke, which they still will not apologise for.
Security Vetting
Mike Wood Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
Because he did not bring to my attention information that he should have brought to my attention. Had he done so, I would not have made the appointment.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister dissembles over what he knew about Sistema and Mandelson, but the Cabinet Office due diligence report sent to the Prime Minister on 11 December 2024 stated:
“Mandelson served as a non-executive director of the Russian conglomerate Sistema, which is itself the majority shareholder of RTI, a defence technology company…Mandelson remained on the board until June 2017, long after Putin’s annexation of Crimea in 2014.”
Will the Prime Minister finally confirm that he knew that Mandelson was a director of Sistema long after the invasion of Crimea, but appointed him anyway?
The Prime Minister
As I have made clear, I did know what was in the due diligence report, and I have made that clear to the House a number of times today. I have actually made it clear to the House on previous occasions.
Infected Blood Compensation Scheme
Mike Wood Excerpts(2 weeks, 3 days 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 providing an advance copy. We naturally welcome the progress reported today. The fact that 3,273 people have received offers totalling more than £2 billion is a significant milestone in a decades-long struggle for justice. I thank the Infected Blood Compensation Authority for its work to speed up the payments.
As Baroness Finn said in the other place,
“what we call the scandal was, in truth, the infliction, collectively, of grievous harm upon thousands of people by the state.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 November 2025; Vol. 849, c. 1821.]
Nowhere was that more egregious or more shocking than in those cases where victims were infected as a result of deliberate experimentation in the name of science. We therefore commend the Minister for the specific increases to the unethical research awards, and in particular the uplift to £60,000 for the survivors of Treloar’s school and the expansion of the scheme to include those treated as adults. Those are necessary recognitions of a truly outrageous chapter of the scandal.
However, while the Minister spoke of tangible, systemic change, many victims and their families will be looking at the fine print with a degree of trepidation. I therefore have a number of questions regarding the delivery and scope of these announcements. The Minister noted that further legislation will be required later this year to enact these substantial changes. Given that the infected blood inquiry’s additional report was published back in July last year, will he reassure the House that the legislative timetable will not lead to further agonising delays for those in declining health? Will the first quarterly feedback summaries, which he has promised will come in July, provide a hard deadline for when those new level 2B severity awards and backdated supply chain management payments will actually reach bank accounts? If not, does he have an expectation of when those payments will be made?
I think the Minister mentioned increased core injury awards for bereaved parents whose children died before the age of 18. Can he provide greater clarity on the justification for excluding parents whose children were infected when they were young children but turned 18 before the time of their death? Regarding the 50% increase to the core autonomy award for those infected at age 18 or under, will he confirm that that will also apply to those infected through their mothers in utero?
The Government rightly aim to minimise the administrative burden and the demand for evidence. We welcome the £60,000 lump sum for those with clear potential to earn but who lack evidence of earnings, but how will the Infected Blood Compensation Authority define “clear potential” without falling back into the lengthy, individualised assessments that the Minister says he wants to avoid?
Finally on the compensation scheme, the Minister announced that for past financial loss, the Government will use whichever calculation is “most financially beneficial” for the recipient. We welcome that pragmatic step, but can he clarify whether the removal of the 25% deduction for past care will be applied automatically to all existing offers, or will those people who have already received offers need to reapply to have their awards adjusted? As the Minister said, the compensation scheme must “embody their stories”. Justice delayed is justice denied, and we must ensure that the new supplementary awards do not become a secondary bureaucratic hurdle for a community that has already given so much testimony and waited so long.
Before I close, I turn to a matter that seems to be missing from the Minister’s statement: the inquiry. When he last updated the House before Christmas, I raised the need to
“move from a period of review to one of rectification and delivery.”—[Official Report, 30 October 2025; Vol. 774, c. 516.]
I also asked him how and when the inquiry might be drawn to a close so there could be a degree of policy certainty. I did not hear him refer to that in his statement, so will he confirm that, with the implementation of the key recommendations from the additional report and Sir Brian’s letters, the public inquiry has now drawn to a close?
Once again, I thank Sir Brian Langstaff and his team for their diligent and comprehensive work over the past eight years to help deliver some justice after decades of scandal and suffering. Most of all, I again pay tribute to the tireless campaigning of the many victims and their families who were infected or affected by the infected blood scandal. They have suffered for far too long in ways that we can barely begin to imagine, and no compensation scheme can ever reverse the horrific harms needlessly done to them. I hope, however, that the universal acceptance of the conclusion of the reports and the determination of us all to do what we can to make changes that will stop others suffering in future will bring them some comfort.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I thank the shadow Minister for the tone that he took in that response and for the supportive tone that he has taken throughout. I will pick up on some of his earlier points. I agree with him entirely when he talks of the heinous nature of the medical experimentation on children that happened during this scandal. Although I have increased the specific amounts, it should be pointed out that those amounts do not stand in isolation; they are specific amounts for the particularly egregious nature of what happened, which are within much higher settlements, and that is exactly as it should be.
On the point about the inquiry, yes, there has now been the formal exchange of letters between me as the responsible Minister and Sir Brian Langstaff. Also, I entirely agree with the shadow Minister about the need for policy certainty going forward. He asked some very reasonable, detailed questions, and I will come back to him properly in writing on those, but let me just deal with a few of them.
I want to bring forward further legislation as soon as possible. When I have brought forward legislation in the past, parties across the House have always worked in a collaborative way throughout to get it through as quickly as possible. Obviously, positions are a matter for the Opposition parties, but continuing that constructive spirit is helpful in getting these things through as quickly as possible.
On the issue of exceptional loss, again, that £60,000, as referred to by the shadow Minister, is not designed to be a very detailed, individualised assessment. That is not what a tariff-based scheme is meant to do. Rather, it is meant to look at the situation of loss of a chance—the situation where somebody, but for their infection or how they were affected by the infection, would have had the opportunity to have gone on and perhaps been a higher-than-average earner but were denied that—and is designed specifically to look at that. On the other very reasonable and detailed matters that the hon. Gentleman raises, I will ensure he gets a full written response.
Oral Answers to Questions
Mike Wood Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
Hospitality adds nearly £2 billion to Northern Ireland’s economy, supporting more than 75,000 jobs, but last year more than 2,000 hospitality workers in Northern Ireland lost their jobs. Does the Secretary of State agree with Unite the union, of which I know he is a member, that this is the result of the Government’s disastrous national insurance rises?
Hilary Benn
The national insurance rise decision that the Chancellor took in her first Budget was necessary because of the woeful economic legacy left to this Government by their predecessor. If the hon. Gentleman is not prepared to recognise that very basic fact, he has not been paying attention.
Draft Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 (Amendment) Order 2026
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 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(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.