Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Wood Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

People throughout the United Kingdom will be disgusted if former terrorists such as Gerry Adams receive compensation from the taxpayer because of Labour’s decision to repeal the legacy Act without putting something in its place. Will the Secretary of State finally commit himself to legislating immediately to prevent that from happening?

[Hilary Benn]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave a moment ago.

Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (First sitting)

Mike Wood Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Q We will now hear oral evidence from Professor Mark Button, Dr Rasha Kassem and Professor Michael Levi. Before calling the first Member to ask a question, I remind Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill. It is vital that we stick to the timings, which are tight and which the Committee has agreed. This panel lasts until 10 past 10 at the outside. Could the witnesses briefly introduce themselves?

Professor Button: Good morning, everybody. My name is Professor Mark Button. I am co-director of the Centre for Cybercrime and Economic Crime at the University of Portsmouth and I have been researching fraud-related issues for nearly 20 years.

Dr Kassem: Good morning, everyone. I am Dr Rasha Kassem, senior lecturer and leader of the fraud research group at Aston University. Like Mark, but probably for fewer years, I have been researching all aspects of fraud.

Professor Levi: I am Michael Levi. I am professor of criminology at Cardiff University and I have been researching fraud for 53 years, so I think I win on that score, although that may mean I am very out of date.

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

Q

I will start by asking the panel a reasonably general question. What, in your experience, are the main limiting factors in investigating public sector fraud?

Professor Button: There is a number of factors. Obviously, the first challenge with dealing with social security fraud and a lot of the rest of public sector fraud is that you have no choice but to deal with those people. It is not like a bank or a private company, which have the opportunity to decide whether to do business with that particular person. In the case of someone making a claim for a benefit, the public sector body has to deal with that person.

You are obviously dealing with increasingly highly organised fraudsters that often operate across borders. That poses significant challenges, particularly for many public sector fraud agencies, particularly when the police themselves have very limited resources. Fewer than 2,000 officers are dedicated to economic crime. They simply do not have the time to help public sector bodies deal with these things. When you look at those particular challenges, having professional capacity within government to investigate fraud with the appropriate powers is a sound basis for dealing with these problems.

Dr Kassem: The capabilities and skills of public authority staff would be a main challenge for me. Do they have the same understanding about what fraud means, its impact, the methodologies and typologies of fraud and the limitations of each type? I ask that because when you talk about fraud, you are talking about fraud committed against the public sector by individuals as well as organisations. The procedures cannot be the same in each case, and the motivations and the resources will not be the same in each case, so they have to have this understanding.

Equally, there has to be an understanding about the differentiation between fraud and error; the element of intent to deceive is the main differentiating factor. Do we have criteria that tell staff in the public sector how to differentiate between fraud and error? Is that agreed upon criteria to ensure that errors are not happening? Are they trained and do they have the proper skills to enable them to investigate without accusing, for example, innocent people and impacting adversely vulnerable individuals? That would be the main challenge, in my view.

Professor Levi: I have one final, quick point, because I know that there are a lot of questions. At one extreme, there is the point that Mark made about organised crime groups and so on, but it is a question of identifying when something is an organised crime activity, which you can only do easily either by getting intelligence or by correlating claimants’ data to build up a pattern, as in covid-19 fraud schemes. At the other extreme, there is what is probably the majority—failure to notify a change in circumstance. This has always been the most common part of the area covered by the Department for Work and Pensions. As far as the Public Sector Fraud Authority goes, I think it is a question of identifying a lot of internal cases from people that you would not ordinarily suspect.

[Mike Wood]

Q I think all three of you have suggested, at least, that the PSFA would be a positive step in tackling some of those challenges. Are there any gaps where you think the legislation could or should have gone further? Is there something that should have been in there but seems to be missing?

Professor Button: One of the key things is always resources. If you look at the size of the PSFA at the moment, in terms of the scale of fraud, and look at some of its estimates, you see that this is substantially more than the estimates of fraud in the DWP, so having a relatively small unit, as proposed, is, I think, a limitation. For me, the key thing is having the appropriate resources within that unit to have a real impact on fraud. That question, “Is there enough there at the moment?”, is a key one.

Dr Kassem: Although I believe that this is a very positive step and definitely will enhance accountability, several things need to be considered. To start with, the definition of fraud can be a bit limiting in the current Bill, because, first, it assumes that fraud is happening for financial reasons when that is not necessarily the case. There are non-financial motives. Let us consider insider fraud—fraud committed by insiders, people working for the public authorities—which is one of the most common threats not just in the public sector, but across other sectors. A disgruntled employee can be as dangerous as someone with a financial motive. So I would stick with the Fraud Act 2006 definition of fraud, because it mentions personal gain full stop. It can be financial and it can be non-financial. That has to be clarified.

There is also the difference between fraud and error. I know that intent is mentioned—rightly so—as the main differentiating factor between fraud and error. Again, however, we have to be very clear about the criteria that would enable public sector staff to differentiate between fraud and error, because you do not want them to make mistakes and accuse innocent individuals of committing fraud, just like what happened in the Post aOffice scandal. That would cause further reputational damage to the Public Sector Fraud Authority and the public sector in general, so they have to be very careful about the criteria, which have to be agreed upon.

This is the second area that I want to talk about: because there is a difference between fraud and error, the recovery and the procedures, in terms of perpetrators committing fraud versus those committing an error, need to be clarified in the Bill. I do not think that that is clear enough at the moment.

The third point is about understanding the very nature of fraud—the fact that fraud can be committed by individuals and organisations. The policies and procedures that will be followed when you deal with fraud committed by individuals should not be the same as those that are followed when you deal with organisations. For example, if you were to take preventive measures, the procedures would be different for organisations versus individuals. With organisations, you are talking about controls, compliance measures and so on. That has to be clarified in the Bill—how fraud committed by organisations will be dealt with versus fraud committed by individuals.

Lastly, I would like to raise the possibility of abuse of power. Again, although the PSFA has greater intentions of preventing fraud, you want it to appear to the public that there is less risk of abuse of position. The oversight board will be very important there as an independent body, and perhaps it could be a board independent from the PSFA staff who oversee the work. For this to work, there have to be proper governance structures, including independent board members who have proper fraud expertise and understand the limitations and the mission of the public authorities. It will be very important for public authorities to report on their operational performance to enable that independent board to oversee properly.

Professor Levi: I do not quite agree with all those comments. Some of those measures do not need to be in the Bill, but they obviously need to be part of the structure. The Bill will hopefully last for a long time, and I am sure that you are all familiar with changes.

I think the point about the resource is important, but you also need to allow time for bedding in. There is the issue of where they will recruit staff from, and how experienced they are in actually dealing with stuff. I remember the Assets Recovery Agency, which was a stand-alone body. It was closed down because it did not recover as much as it cost at that time, as there were so many appeals. This is not quite analogous with that agency, but one needs to remember that it takes years to develop skills in actually handling cases. I do not think that is so much a question of the limitations of the Bill but a warning about not expecting too rapid results. Obviously, the practitioners and policymakers may offer a different view from mine, but I think it takes quite a long time. When I reviewed the Serious Fraud Office for the royal commission in 1992, I saw that gaining expertise in actually dealing with stuff takes quite a while, and some would argue that it has not yet done that.

[Mike Wood]

Q The Government’s impact assessment recognises that some will change their behaviours to circumvent checks. How easy do you think it would be to close the loopholes that allow some to get around the checks? Would that be a proportionate response?

Professor Button: With any kind of initiative like this, you will always get a degree of displacement. The clever fraudsters will find new means to get around the rules. Obviously, a lot of these measures are directed at the more opportunistic individuals who are not as well organised and probably do not invest as much time in looking for means to get around some of those measures. For that client group of offenders, the Bill will be quite effective. However, for the more organised offenders, particularly the more organised crime elements, they will find ways to get around some of these measures.

Professor Levi: I am not clear about the provisions for international linkages in the Bill. Perhaps that is something that just needs to be sorted out afterwards, but people need to be able to chase money overseas. The question about who does that, and what they need to do before they are able to do that, is pretty important. This is not so much in covid-19 frauds, because that has already happened, but a lot of these things are time critical. The asset-freezing orders that were granted to the police in 2017 have proven very effective, so we need to think about what processes there are for dealing with stuff rapidly.

Dr Kassem: I have one final point. I raised the issue of differentiating between fraud committed by individuals and by organisations. I think that needs to be sorted in the Bill, not afterwards. For example, from a governance perspective, the Bill says that you can access banks accounts and freeze assets, but whose? Are you going to take the assets from the organisation, the directors running the organisation or the fraud perpetrators inside the organisation? This has to be sorted, because you will face another issue, at least in courts, about who is the controlling mind in the organisation. The organisation has a mind of its own legally, and therefore cannot be treated in the same way as when you deal directly with individuals. If that is sorted, there will hopefully be a higher probability of recovery and fewer loopholes in the Bill.

Professor Levi: There is also the question of legal aid for those suspected or accused who have to take some measures to appeal. I was not clear about that, although it may be my fault.

[Neil Coyle]

Q Can I come back in on the point about fraud and error, and the differentiation between organised fraud and fraud by individuals? Are you saying that needs to be more clearly defined? There is potentially a slight difference on the panel: Dr Kassem, you were saying that there needs to be greater clarity in the Bill, and Professor Levi, you were saying that some bits do not need to be in the Bill. Are you saying that they need to be in the guidance? I was a bit confused.

Professor Levi: I am not sure that it needs to be in the Bill. Definitions of what we mean by “organised” are typically vague. An act committed by three or more people for the pursuit of profit is a very low bar for organised crime. A fraud by one person can be perfectly well organised, but they are not part of an organised crime group. In policing, we talk about organised crime activity and people normally think about organised crime groups. That is a definitional problem that may be too much for the Bill in its present form, and indeed for Governments. They certainly need to think about what conditions apply to which people, and I am sure they have. I am not sure whether that constraint needs to be in the Bill, but Dr Rasha may have a different view.

Dr Kassem: For me, when I talk about fraud committed by organisations, it does not have to be organised crime. It could be a legitimate organisation defrauding the public sector. Again, the Bill mentions things around recovery, such as accessing bank accounts and seizing assets—how would they apply in cases of organisation versus individual? That needs to be thought about carefully in the Bill. Again, when you think about the nature of fraud and who is committing it, you are talking about different powers and different motives for individuals versus organisations. There are different assets and different ways of recovery. They are not the same, and therefore that has to be clarified in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We will now hear evidence from Helena Wood, director of public policy and strategic engagement at Cifas and a fellow of the Royal United Services Institute.

[Mike Wood]

Q Welcome, Ms Wood. A lot of the discussion on the first panel was about the balance between effectiveness and proportionality. How well do you think the Bill as currently drafted strikes that balance?

Helena Wood: I find it quite difficult to comment on that, given that we are yet to see the code of practice. A lot of burden has been placed on that code of practice as it stands to build in some of that proportionality. I know the Government have committed to consulting on that code of practice forthwith, but without seeing that, a lot hinges on how those powers will be used in practice. Without that being known to me at present, I would quite like to see something pulled up on to the face of the Bill to build in proportionality by design.

Both on the PSFA side and the DWP eligibility verification powers, the Bill is a very blunt instrument, as it stands, and I think the law would do well to pull up those proportionality measures on to the face of the Bill. We have to look at this Bill in its broader context: very much unintentionally, it stands at that ideological debate between the rights of the individual to privacy and the rights of society as a whole to benefit from the funds that are available to fund essential public services. We have to deal with both of those arguments with due caution and due respect. As it stands, the Bill tends to be quite blunt in the way things are proposed on its face, and I would like to see a lot more from that code of practice and how it will be built in.

Beyond that, I would like to see a lot more about the people who will be using these powers. Again, we trust the police to use their coercive and intrusive powers based on their skills, experience and training. At the moment, there is a reasonably low bar set in the legislation, which is merely to be a higher executive officer or senior executive officer—a very entry-grade civil service officer. Other coercive powers that we can see across areas I have studied over the course of a 20-year career, particularly the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, require some professional skills: where one is not a police officer, one must be a trained financial investigator. It is a trained and accredited role that is overseen by statute. Here, the competence of the individuals using that power, and the trust we can thus place in them to use those powers proportionately, is quite limited.

[Mike Wood]

Q If we are looking at moving some of those standards on to the face of the Bill, for questions such as reasonableness, is there a recognised definition or test for reasonableness that you think could be incorporated into the Bill?

Helena Wood: It depends which part of the Bill we are talking about. This is a game of two halves: some of the PSFA powers, for example, mirror powers that are used almost as standard across the landscape of counter-financial crime, and I think we can be more comfortable about the use of those powers. The power I have more concerns about is something that is very new and incredibly intrusive, and without limitation to it being a civil or criminal investigation: the DWP eligibility verification powers. There, we need to proceed with more caution about how they are used, given that this is very much at risk of being a blanket, phishing-style power without any recourse to the limitations and the bars that others have to reach to use other powers that would be either a civil or criminal investigation. I think that part of the Bill requires a little more thought and proportionality pulling up front, unless the Government can bring forward that code of practice to allow those of you around the room judging this Bill to see what will be in the code to limit the use of those powers to the highest risk of high-end investigations, rather than making it a blanket power.

[Mike Wood]

Q Given the extent and potential impact of those powers, is it your view that some further oversight or, potentially, appeal mechanism would be appropriate to help safeguard those interests?

Helena Wood: Absolutely. The concerns I have around those powers are about collateral intrusion. We can all agree that the quality of data both on the DWP side and on the part of financial institutions is not always as good as it could be. I completely agree with the need to minimise the level of information that those institutions give back to the DWP, to caution against unnecessary intrusions upon privacy, but I would like to see a minimum standard of data match that would be required to take action on that data. If the banks are only giving a minimum amount of information back into the DWP, how do we know that that is an absolute specific match on the individuals they have on their system? Without seeing information about how that will be acted upon in the code of practice, I am slightly cautious. We need to see that detail earlier rather than later, for you to be able to make that judgment about the risk of unintended consequences of this legislation.

Let us again look at this in its broader context. This is a very intrusive power, but it sits in a suite of other measures and powers available to investigators across the system. What we do not want to do with this power is to bring those other powers into disrepute. We have to apply it with due caution, making sure that a match is a match. I would like to see which specific data points will be available to the DWP investigator to ensure this is a match and to minimise the risk of collateral intrusion.

[Andrew Western]

Q On your point about scope and the level of intrusion associated with the eligibility verification measure, you said you would like to see the power restricted to the most serious investigations. From our perspective, that would run contrary to what we are trying to achieve in capturing data that enables us to identify those who we had no idea were committing fraud or in receipt of an overpayment, albeit unwittingly. Is there another way you think we could achieve this?

Helena Wood: That is a very good question. It goes back to the balance between individual rights to privacy and society’s rights as a whole. Only you can make the decision about where that balance falls. Going back to the previous question, I would like to see built into the oversight of the use of the power a specific requirement for the independent reviewer to look at instances of collateral intrusion and where mistakes have been made, and to report on those to Parliament. If we can build that into the code of practice—forgive me for keeping on going back to that code, but I think a lot of the use of this power hinges on how it will be used in practice and by whom. We need to build some significant guardrails against that.

The second point I would make is that to my knowledge, this is an unprecedented power internationally, so how can we be sure it is going to be effective in practice? We know, for example, that individuals rarely have one bank account in one institution any more. In fact, numerous pieces of research—forgive me; I do not have the figures in my head, but I can refer those back to the Committee—show that individuals now have masses of bank accounts across five, six, seven and up to 10 or 20 institutions. By targeting one institution, are you really going to get a full picture anyway? If this is to be proportionate, we have to be clear that intrusion is proportionate and is going to be effective in practice. I am yet to see the evidence that it is, if it is used in a scattergun way. That is why it would be great to build into the code of practice something much more targeted around risk. For example, high-risk postcodes coming through in intelligence around organised crime attacks on the benefits system might be one way to look at this.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We will now hear evidence from Kristin Jones, formerly of the Serious Fraud Office and the Crown Prosecution Service, and from Alex Rothwell, chief executive of the NHS Counter Fraud Authority. For this panel, we have until 11 o’clock.

[Mike Wood]

Q Perhaps I can start with the same question that I asked Helena Wood in the last panel. How well do you think the Bill, as currently drafted, strikes the balance between effectiveness and proportionality?

Kristin Jones: I am sure I have the same answer as Helena. Until we see the codes of practice and the operational guidance, it is difficult to tell. Obviously, I have operated in very regulated situations where there has been accountability, but without that extra information, I cannot really say at the moment. But I think it is important that when you interfere with the rights of the individual, decisions are taken at a sufficiently high level by people with sufficient experience.

[Mike Wood]

Is that your view as well, Alex?

Alex Rothwell: I would echo Kristin’s thoughts. I suppose there is not necessarily anything novel in the Bill. Those powers exist elsewhere, so we have seen them in operation. The ability to test and learn, which is baked into the proposals, is very helpful. Importantly, it addresses a need.

[Mike Wood]

Q A theme seems to be emerging from this morning’s witnesses that it is difficult to know whether the extensive powers in the Bill are proportionate without knowing how they will be exercised. Would you expect the details that are planned for the code of practice to be on the face of the legislation?

Kristin Jones: Not on the face of the legislation necessarily, but I would perhaps expect certain commitments in debate that the code of practice will cover certain areas.

[Mike Wood]

Perhaps a draft code before Parliament makes definitive decisions on the legislation.

Kristin Jones: Yes, or commitments to safeguards that will be in the code of practice.

[Mike Wood]

Q Do you think that the measures in the Bill and the powers to update them are sufficiently flexible to respond to the changing nature of fraud that you have seen through your career and would expect to continue in the years ahead?

Kristin Jones: I do have some reservations about dealing with corporate organisations, as was expressed earlier, because a corporate cannot speak itself; it can speak only through its officers. The Bill only talks about notices; it does not talk about answering questions. It is quite difficult if you are not able to ask an officer of a corporate questions and you have just written answers through notices. I wonder whether there are sufficient powers for dealing with the more serious, top end of public sector fraud.

[Mike Wood]

Q Alex, perhaps you could broaden out this discussion by explaining the specific challenges that the NHS faces in identifying and investigating fraud and recovering sums of money. Could you comment on how you expect the Bill to make a difference?

Alex Rothwell: Perhaps a good example is that although we believe we are losing something in the region of £1.3 billion a year to fraud, the amount of fraud that is actually identified is relatively low, because a lot of the value we get is from future prevention. For example, in 2023-24, the figure was something like £5.2 million, but we only recovered 12% of that figure. There is a lot more value to be had. The Bill will be incredibly helpful for us to recover more money from people who have been suspected of fraud. When it comes to pursuing criminal justice outcomes in relatively low value cases—perhaps individuals who have taken £5,000 or £10,000, who have been exited through human resources processes or who have simply left the organisation—the Bill gives us an incredible opportunity to recover more funds, and I think we would use it extensively.

[Mike Wood]

Q Do either of you think that anything is missing from the Bill that would help in the fight against fraud and would be appropriate in legislation like this?

Kristin Jones: My career has been dealing with fraud in the public and private sector, and I think it is important that when fraud is investigated and you discover something that is not in your scope, you are able to communicate it so that fraudsters are tackled, whether that is in the private or public sector. That is my only concern.

Alex Rothwell: The Bill seems pretty comprehensive in terms of our requirements. There are things that I have concerns around, including training—not just of individuals who are exercising the powers, but of those who manage them and set the culture and tone of an organisation and how it is built in. I echo Kristin’s comments about private sector providers. For example, we are increasingly seeing private sector providers providing NHS services, so how would that be exercised? From my point of view it is more about the exercise of the powers than the extent of the powers.

Kristin Jones: The other thing I think is missing compared to when other organisations have been established is that we only talk about investigators. I am a great believer in a multidisciplinary team, with early legal advice, accountancy advice as necessary and financial investigators, but we have an organisation at the moment in which we only define the role of the investigators.

[Andrew Western]

Q I asked this question of the first panel, but I am interested, both in broad terms and specifically within the parameters of your role in the NHS, in whether you have seen changing attitudes to fraud in recent years. Obviously there are various public attitude surveys that would indicate that that is the case, but has there been an increasing prevalence of fraud that the NHS has had to contend with, and do you have any comments on general changes in attitudes?

Alex Rothwell: I certainly echo your thoughts in terms of attitude. We have seen that expressed in a number of different ways through surveys and transparency—the international transparency index, for example. In terms of statistics, we have seen our fraud prevalence rate remain fairly steady over the last five to seven years, but it is a complex picture because I think that we have been increasing our fraud protection measures as well. What we have seen across the board are bitter pay disputes and a sense that contracts do not pay enough. We have extensive provider assurance programmes that are recovering funds through what we classify as error. I do not see any change in that climate necessarily. Opportunities to strengthen prevention, for us, are the most important factor to influence people’s decision making before they commit fraud. So it is a huge concern to me, but not necessarily in terms of statistics.

Kristin Jones: During my career, I have seen sentences for fraud increase dramatically and that sends a clear message but, over my career, instead of only a few people being exposed to fraud, when you answer your telephone, there is a good chance you have a scammer at the other end; it could happen once a week, if not several times a day. If you are being targeted, it could be every mealtime, with the scammer hoping that while you are distracted you will fall for some con. The worry is that the public are exposed so much to fraud that its seriousness gets watered down in their mind. You have these forums where you can recommend how to claim various things from the Government and how to hit sweet spots to get that benefit or grant. So it has changed and perhaps people are not as shocked by fraud as they used to be.

Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

Mike Wood Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Minister for his very thorough statement and for advance sight of it.

I want to start by thanking the campaigners and victims who have spent years pushing for justice for this terrible tragedy that occurred over a number of decades. The previous Conservative Government took the first steps towards recognising the horrific wrong inflicted on so many patients and their loved ones in opening and concluding the inquiry into the infected blood scandal, but particular acknowledgement must go to my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) who worked so hard when he was Paymaster General to make sure that victims and their families could at last receive some degree of justice.

I welcome the progress the Government have made since the election. Parliamentary politics inevitably focuses on division and there is plenty on which we profoundly disagree with the Government, but on this matter we speak as one. There is nothing of substance that the right hon. Gentleman and his Department are doing that is meaningfully different from what we would have done if we had still been in government. We will of course review the legislation on the next stage of the infected blood compensation scheme, but the Minister and all who are campaigning for justice can be assured that we will support the Government in their efforts.

We welcome the start of compensation payments by IBCA, but we know that victims have raised concerns about the pace of processing applications for compensation. I hope the Minister can confirm what measures he is putting in place to ensure that the processing capacity within the authority is adequate and that application processing can be sped up, because the next phase of the compensation framework will mean that applications to the authority could increase by tens of thousands. All victims and their families need to know what is being done to ensure that those claims can be processed at pace.

I am concerned by reports that only a very small fraction of those who may be eligible to claim compensation have been contacted so far; one estimate puts it as low as 0.2% of possible claimants, although I recognise that such estimates can sometimes be out of date. I hope the Minister will be able to provide some clarity on the percentage of those believed to be eligible who have been contacted so far. I know that the Minister will understand the need for the Government to communicate clearly to all who may be eligible to encourage them to apply.

That reinforces the importance that must be placed on processing claims quickly. Those who are eligible must have confidence that their claims will be accurately and quickly processed so that they receive the payment they are entitled to as soon as possible. I appreciate, of course, the staged manner in which the authority is taking claims and the need to prioritise certain claims, but I hope the Government can reiterate clearly that no one needs to worry about the capacity within the authority and the system, particularly in relation to claims that will be processed in the later stages.

I ask the Minister to offer some clarity on his assessment of whether the funding allocated so far will cover all the expected claims. We know that up to 140,000 relatives could apply for compensation as a result of the planned expansion of claim eligibility. While the Government understandably cannot provide an exact estimate of the total funding required, that would go some way to offering reassurance to victims and their families that the funding for the authority to compensate in full all who suffered harm or loss and for all the operational requirements of the authority is properly provided for.

All of us in this House understand the scale and damage of this scandal and recognise the immense efforts of victims and their families in pushing for justice, and we welcome the laying of the regulations. I conclude by repeating my assurance on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition that we will work with the Government to ensure that everyone who is eligible is aware and that they receive the compensation that they need and deserve as quickly as possible.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I will make sure that your stricture about time is properly communicated across Government, Madam Deputy Speaker.

May I start by echoing the comments of the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) about my predecessor as Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), who did so much in government to push this forward? Just as I offered cross-party support when shadowing him, the continued cross-party support today is very important in respect of the speed at which we are able to push forward with the legal framework we are putting in place.

On the issue of speed, I am restless for progress. While IBCA is of course an arm’s length body and has operational independence, I will none the less have more to say in due course about key performance indicators, as the House will want to continue to raise the speed of payments being made to constituents.

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman’s comments about clarity of communication. I am forever emphasising the need for simple explainer documents on what are complex regulations. Finally, the Government have already allocated £11.8 billion in funding for the operation of IBCA and for compensation, and we are committed to compensate all the victims of this terrible scandal.

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.