Chris Ward MP: speeches

Speeches

• 27 Nov 2025 · Government Transparency and Accountability · Hansard source

  More

  I was going to come to that. The hon. Lady has raised that point before, including on Monday.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Government Transparency and Accountability · Hansard source

  More

  I am listening. I am pleased that she has secured this debate. I could see her frustration throughout. I will come to her specific points shortly, but by way of introduction I will set out the Government’s position. As the hon. Lady said, the Prime Minister made it clear that the Government are committed to restoring trust, accountability and transparency in politics, and to ensuring that those of us who have the enormous privilege of serving in public office are held to the highest standards. As the Prime Minister himself wrote in his foreword to the updated and strengthened ministerial code, “Restoring trust in politics is the great test of our era. The British people have lost faith in its ability to change their lives for the better.” It is worth remembering briefly why the Prime Minister felt it necessary to write those words and why trust in politics is at such a critical moment, as the hon. Lady said. Frankly, the events of the last Parliament cast a long shadow over this issue—particularly partygate, which resulted in a Prime Minister being fined for breaching laws that he introduced, and being found to have deliberately misled the House at this Dispatch Box. That is unprecedented, and it has proved deeply corrosive of public trust. Those events were compounded by the former Prime Minister’s complete disregard for the role of the independent adviser on ministerial standards. Two independent ministerial advisers resigned because they lost faith in his upholding even basic standards. In contrast, I do not accept the hon. Lady’s assertion about how this Government are approaching the matter. This Prime Minister is determined to repair the breach in public trust and to rebuild it, and to ensure that government is once again in the service of working people.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Government Transparency and Accountability · Hansard source

  More

  I am going to, if she lets me. This is a matter for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport predominantly. The Culture Secretary made a statement to this House on the matter. All donations from Mr Kogan were made in line with the rules, and we are perfectly transparent on that. The Prime Minister asked the independent adviser to look at the matter, and at the Prime Minister’s role in it. Again, I contrast that with the behaviour of the last Government. The adviser was satisfied with the Prime Minister’s response, and said that the disclosures made by the Prime Minister were an important demonstration of the Prime Minister’s “commitment to transparency and to ensuring that…necessary steps” were taken to improve the process underlying standards in public life. Again, that is a contrast. I also point out that the Prime Minister stands at this Dispatch Box every week at Prime Minister’s questions. Hon. Members have had ample opportunity to ask that question, and they have chosen not to do so. There was no moving away from this; the process has been transparent. Everything was published in line with the rules, and there is ample opportunity to question both the Prime Minister and the Culture Secretary about this. I hope that answers the hon. Lady’s point. Returning to other actions—

• 27 Nov 2025 · Government Transparency and Accountability · Hansard source

  More

  That is true; the Department of Health and Social Care is the Department with the largest number of PQs submitted. It is taking action to improve its PQ performance, but it receives a huge number; PQs are at record numbers. I am just saying that there is not wilful avoidance; a lot of this is about the volume, and trying to get through the questions. I will try to make some progress. The Government are also engaging in the ongoing parliamentary inquiry, requested by Mr Speaker, on ministerial statements and the ministerial code. The Government are determined to ensure that when we have public inquiries, they lead to meaningful change, accountability and justice. For example, we are carefully considering the latest report from the covid-19 inquiry, and will respond fully in due course. To further drive accountability and implementation, the Government have launched a publicly accessible list on gov.uk of all recommendations made by inquiries, and the progress that the Government are making in response. As I said, the Government do take transparency and accountability extremely seriously. We are, as with so many other things—from the economy to prisons and the immigration system—having to rebuild faith and trust in our politics from the very low base that we inherited. The hon. Lady made some good points about responses to PQs and letters, on which I will follow up, but the Government are making progress and are committed to going further. I welcome the debate, and the opportunity to discuss this tonight. Question put and agreed to.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Government Transparency and Accountability · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for bringing forward this debate. I know that she has raised these matters before a number of times in the House—

• 19 Nov 2025 · Draft Procurement Act 2023 (Specified International Agreements and Saving Provision) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Procurement Act 2023 (Specified International Agreements and Saving Provision) (Amendment) Regulations 2025. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. The purpose of the statutory instrument is simple: to implement the procurement chapter of the UK-Iraq partnership and co-operation agreement and the UK-Kazakhstan strategic partnership and co-operation agreement. Both agreements are part of the UK’s ongoing continuity trade programme following our exit from the EU. As the Committee will know, the UK’s trade continuity programme aimed to replicate existing EU trade agreements where possible after the UK left the EU. The goal was to ensure businesses, consumers and investors maintained stability and access to benefits such as preferential tariffs. The UK-Iraq PCA and the UK-Kazakhstan SPCA are two of the last remaining trade agreements to be updated, and the SI implements the procurement chapters of them. Before I cover the procurement chapter commitments in some detail, I want to provide the House with more background on the two agreements. The UK-Iraq PCA and the UK-Kazakhstan SPCA establish frameworks to govern our trade and economic relationship with Iraq and Kazakhstan. They will strengthen our co-operation across a range of priority areas and signal our commitment to two strategically important partners. The UK-Iraq PCA was signed during Prime Minister al-Sudani’s visit to the UK in January this year. During that visit, both Prime Ministers announced a trade package worth over £12 billion. That package, when fully delivered, will represent a tenfold increase compared with our current annual trade. The UK has therefore started a new chapter in our relationship with Iraq, and the PCA will deepen our bilateral relationship across a wide range of sectors including, but not limited to: energy, transport, scientific research, education and culture, as well as counter-terrorism and arms controls. The UK-Kazakhstan SPCA, which was signed in April 2024 by the previous Government, provides a framework for political dialogue and deeper co-operation on trade, security, climate, education and culture. The agreement goes further than existing World Trade Organisation arrangements on the provision of services, creating more favourable conditions on the establishment of cross-border supply. It also exceeds Kazakhstan’s current WTO commitments on global procurement, aligning them to the WTO Government procurement agreement, to which Kazakhstan is currently in the process of acceding. The treaty is a substantial indication of the UK’s commitment to strategic political and economic co-operation with Kazakhstan, and it confirms our long-standing shared interests. UK businesses have traded with Kazakhstan since its independence in 1991 in areas such as minerals, education and architecture. The agreement will deepen those links. The text of the SPCA also makes important and specific references to bilateral dialogue on human rights, labour relations and gender equality. It is important to note that the procurement chapters of the agreements broadly replicate the standards and market access commitments of the original EU agreements before our exit from the EU. Some of the language has been tweaked to better reflect the specific bilateral context between the UK and the two countries today. A key distinction between the Iraqi and Kazakh agreements is that the procurement market access commitments in the SPCA can considered broadly equivalent to that of the WTO GPA. However, the market access levels in the Iraq PCA are lower than that as they only include access to central Government entities. As part of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act process to enable parliamentary scrutiny, both agreements were laid in Parliament on 9 July. The agreements cleared the CRaG scrutiny process on 16 October, and this SI was subsequently laid on 21 October. The procurement chapters of the agreements can only take effect once the agreements have implemented in domestic legislation. The SI will achieve that by updating schedule 9 to the Procurement Act 2023 to implement in domestic law the UK’s procurement obligations under both agreements. Through the addition of the agreements to schedule 9, suppliers entitled to benefit from them will be considered “treaty state suppliers” under section 89 of the Procurement Act. That will provide them with access and rights in UK public procurement equal to that afforded to UK suppliers. In turn, the agreements require Iraq and Kazakhstan to provide equivalent access for UK suppliers. The Procurement Act regulations are being amended to ensure that the UK’s obligations under both agreements apply in relation to contracts that can still be entered into under the previous procurement regime. The territorial extent of this instrument is UK wide. The territorial application of the instrument in relation to contracts under the Procurement Act extends to England and Northern Ireland. The same extends to Scotland, but not in respect of procurement carried out by a devolved Scottish authority. The same extends to Wales, but not in respect of procurement regulated by Welsh Ministers. Therefore, the Welsh Government will make a separate SI to implement the agreements in respect of procurements regulated by Welsh Ministers, and the Scottish Government will implement the agreements separately, under their own legislation, in respect of procurement carried out by a devolved Scottish authority. The territorial application of this instrument in relation to contracts under the previous procurement regime extends to England and Wales and Northern Ireland. I hope that hon. Members will join me in supporting the statutory instrument, which helps to update and strengthen our relationship with both Iraq and Kazakhstan.

• 19 Nov 2025 · Draft Procurement Act 2023 (Specified International Agreements and Saving Provision) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I was rather expecting some further contributions, but there we go—I can see what the time is. I welcome the continuing cross-party support on this matter across the Committee. As the hon. Gentleman said, much of this work—particularly on the Kazakhstan agreement—was started under the previous Government. The hon. Gentleman raised a couple of points. We do not expect there to be a material policy change. As I said, the regulations replicate much of where we were pre-EU exit. There are some technical tweaks, but, to his point, there is no material change. On additional burdens on business, which he also mentioned, we do not expect there to be a significant impact from the regulations because the underpinning framework is not being substantially amended; these really are technical changes. On SMEs, as I said, we do not expect huge changes, but once the regulations are agreed to formally by the House, updated guidance will be published to inform SMEs, affected people and suppliers looking to trade into Kazakhstan and Iraq and vice versa. More broadly, the Government have a big programme of work to try to improve support for SMEs in the procurement regime. Some really important progress was made on that in the Procurement Act—there is cross-party agreement here—but we are looking to go much further and ensure that the public procurement budget of almost £400 billion a year does everything it can to support SMEs. We will look to do that going forward, but we do not expect there to be material change from the regulations. I think that covers all the hon. Gentleman’s points. The implementation of the regulations will be a key step in formalising our relationship with both countries, with mutual benefits on both sides. We are committed to enhancing our relationship with Kazakhstan and with Iraq. I hope that colleagues will join me in supporting the regulations, which I commend to the Committee. Question put and agreed to.

• 12 Nov 2025 · Nolan Principles · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman raises a really important point, particularly for Members of this House, but also across public services more broadly. We have seen some very worrying reports of that recently in our core public services. If it is okay with him, I will discuss it with my colleagues in the Government Equalities Office to see what we can do and write back to him. He raises a good point. As I was saying, I do not accept the fatalism set out by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East, but where there are failings and public servants do not meet high standards, there needs to be swift and effective accountability. It is, of course, the responsibility of this Government and these Ministers—indeed all Governments, politicians and public servants—to strive to reflect what Lord Nolan set out 30 years ago. As I have said, the Government are taking steps to achieve that. I am the first to accept that we are not there yet, but we are making progress.

• 12 Nov 2025 · Nolan Principles · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) for securing the debate. He said it would not be pain free, and he was true to his word, but I know he cares passionately about these matters. Whether it is the Hillsborough law, the Kincora children’s scandal—he has campaigned on that for many years—or other injustices, I know he cares deeply about our public services and the Nolan principles underpinning them, so I will take this in that spirit.

• 12 Nov 2025 · Nolan Principles · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I agree. That is why we need to get the measures in the Bill right, and why I hope that she and other colleagues will work with us in Committee and as the Bill progresses. I respect the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East a lot, but I simply do not accept the general depiction he gave of the Government and the lack of progress made. I remind him that we have delivered on a manifesto commitment to establish the Ethics and Integrity Commission, which will promote the seven principles and report annually on improving standards. We have closed ACOBA—the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments—and reformed the outdated business appointments system. The ministerial severance system has also been reformed to save the taxpayer money and to end the scandal we saw under the previous Government, where Ministers got large amounts of public money after either being removed from their position or returning very quickly. And just this week my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government announced strong new powers to improve standards and accountability across local government.

• 12 Nov 2025 · Nolan Principles · Hansard source

  More

  That is a matter for individual parties and for the Lords to look at. I will come back to the hon. Gentleman on this question, because House of Lords reform is another area that the Cabinet Office is overseeing. I do agree, with regard to recent cases in particular—across the House, I should say—that there is a need to improve trust and accountability. The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill, which we intend to take through Parliament, is part of trying to modernise and improve the House of Lords. I think it would be a big step forward if we could pass that Bill. I will come back to the hon. Gentleman on his broader point, if that is okay. Finally, as I have said, the Government are taking steps to breathe new life into the Nolan principles. We are not there yet but will keep working on it. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East for securing this debate. Question put and agreed to.

• 12 Nov 2025 · Nolan Principles · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend raises a very good point, although I should remind him that I think parish councils are about to be abolished in the local government reorganisation so we might have to look at that, but I take his point, which is a fair one. [ Official Report , 17 November 2025; Vol. 775, c. 4WC.] (Correction) The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East mentioned a number of recent cases where, to put it politely, he suggests the Nolan principles may not have been abided by. I will, of course, not comment on the specifics of all of those, or indeed those where the Scottish Government may not have always abided by the principles, but I will say that the Prime Minister has made clear how seriously he takes Ministers abiding by the code. It is why he invited the independent ethics adviser—the independent adviser on ministerial standards —to address Cabinet on the first day after the election and why he has stuck ever since to a very powerful role for that position, which I think we can agree is a step forward. The final thing I want to say is that I have heard the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East say before that he believes that “our leaders…cannot be trusted to do the right thing unless they are legally required to do so.” —[ Official Report, 3 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 123WH.] After recent years, and perhaps even recent weeks, I understand his scepticism, but I do not accept his fatalism. I believe that the vast majority of our public servants and our leaders are trustworthy. I believe that every day they seek to show leadership with honesty, integrity, accountability, selflessness, objectivity and openness. But where public servants fail to meet those standards, there must be clear and effective accountability.

• 12 Nov 2025 · Nolan Principles · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. On local government, I will just reiterate that the Housing, Communities and Local Government Secretary set out important powers earlier in the week to try to improve standards and to hold people to account. Hopefully that will help.

• 12 Nov 2025 · Nolan Principles · Hansard source

  More

  I will come to accountability later, but I do agree that there is more that can be done on accountability. I would argue that this Government are making some progress on that, but I do agree, and I will come on to that later. I want to assure the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East and the House that the Government are committed to strengthening and upholding the Nolan principles. Indeed, just last week the Prime Minister reiterated at this Dispatch Box that those principles “are not some kind of optional extra, but the very essence of public service itself.” —[ Official Report , 3 November 2025; Vol. 774, c. 658.] It is worth reminding the House that the Nolan principles do not just apply to politicians; they apply to all public servants, elected or not, in local and national Government, as well as the civil service, the police and those in health, education, social care and other services. They also apply to those in the private and voluntary sector who deliver services paid for by the taxpayer. I do want to emphasise that the overwhelming majority of public servants seek to uphold these principles, and live and breathe them every day. In my opinion, we are too quick to point out those who fail and too reticent to point out those who live them every day. However, it is true that in recent years, as has been mentioned, public trust in our politics and our public service more broadly has been eroded. Indeed, it was in response to the events of the last Parliament—partygate, the complete sidelining of the independent adviser and the abuse of public contracts during covid—that this Prime Minister outlined a number of steps to strengthen the ministerial code and to try to breathe new life into the Nolan principles. That is why the Prime Minister put the Nolan principles up front in a strengthened ministerial code, rather than as an afterthought or as an annexe. It is why the Prime Minister has empowered the independent ethics adviser to launch his own inquiries without prime ministerial approval, which I think we can all agree is a welcome change from the last Government. It is also why the Hillsborough law, for which we have all waited so long and which I know Members across the House support, will ensure that every public authority has a legal requirement to adopt a code of ethical conduct based on the Nolan principles. I know that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East will agree that this is an important step forward, and I hope it can be a catalyst to drive improvements across the public sector based around the Nolan principles. I know the hon. Member called today, as he has done previously, for an office of the whistleblower. I do understand why, and I know how strongly he feels about it. As he will know, the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee have both looked at this recently and published reports on how to improve whistleblowing in the civil service, but neither of them recommended creating an independent body due to the risk of duplication. The Government agree with that, but I do hope that he will work with us—I am sure that he will—during the passage of the Hillsborough law to try to ensure that it delivers the candour, justice, accountability and safety that whistleblowers need. [ Official Report , 24 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 2WC.] (Correction)

• 12 Nov 2025 · Nolan Principles · Hansard source

  More

  As I understand it, the Scottish Government have had a number of years to address that, and they still have not done so, so I hope the First Minister will get to that and we can clarify it. We are celebrating 30 years of the Nolan principles this year, and the principles set out by Lord Nolan in 1995—honesty, integrity, accountability, selflessness, objectivity, openness and leadership—are rightly the foundations of standards in public life across the United Kingdom. As the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East said, with public trust in our public services and our politics at a low point, they are as important, if not more, as they have been at any point in the last three decades.

• 16 Oct 2025 · Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements · Hansard source

  More

  The answer is yes to both.

• 16 Oct 2025 · Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for the question and for the opportunity to respond to it today. I appreciate how serious and personal this is for the hon. Member, who, like other Members of this House, is sanctioned by China and/or named in the witness statements. Following the Security Minister’s statement to the House on Monday, the Prime Minister updated Parliament yesterday, following the Crown Prosecution Service’s clarification that the Government were able to publish the witness statements of the deputy National Security Adviser. As the Prime Minister said in the House, he carefully considered this matter and, following legal advice, decided to disclose the witness statements unredacted and in full. I reiterate that, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, under this Government no Minister or special adviser played any role in the provision of evidence. The Prime Minister cannot say whether that was the case under the previous Government, but I once again invite the Conservative party to clarify that.

• 16 Oct 2025 · Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman raises a good point, and I thank him for his kind words in welcoming me. If I can speak as many times in this place as he does, I will be very grateful —[Interruption.] I am not sure anyone really wants that. He makes a very serious point about the threats posed by China and the threats posed to his constituents and all our constituents by that. That is the central message we should be trying to get back to: how the Government can work across the parties and how, with the CPS and others, we can all work to ensure that this kind of thing can never happen again.

• 16 Oct 2025 · Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the tone of his question. On the first point— [ Interruption. ] I am so sorry; will he remind me what that was?

• 16 Oct 2025 · Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements · Hansard source

  More

  That is absolutely my understanding.

• 16 Oct 2025 · Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements · Hansard source

  More

  I cannot reply on specifics of the 48 Group; I do not know that. But the National Security Adviser was not involved in any part of this, as the Prime Minister made clear yesterday.

• 16 Oct 2025 · Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements · Hansard source

  More

  No, that is really not the case. First, people who have worked with the DNSA will know that he is of the highest calibre and integrity on this matter. He presented evidence under successive Governments on this, devoid of any influence from advisers or Government on this side—I cannot say if that was the case under the previous Government, but I am sure it was. He presented that evidence freely and to the best of his ability under successive Governments.

• 16 Oct 2025 · Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements · Hansard source

  More

  This is the bit that I find slightly confusing about the Opposition’s approach. On Monday and today as well, they have accused this Government of political interference, including by the National Security Adviser. The Prime Minister has made it absolutely clear that that is completely untrue. On the other hand, they are saying there should have been political interference, and that the Prime Minister should have directed or tried to help the CPS. The Prime Minister has made it very clear that that is not the case, and that no Prime Minister and no Government would interfere with the CPS on a decision to charge, which is entirely for it to make. In terms of the evidence in the three statements put forward yesterday, there is clear consistency across them. They all set out the very, very serious threats that China poses. I do not think anyone can think that that is not the case. [ Interruption. ] It was provided independently by the deputy National Security Adviser without interference from anyone else. They are his words. It is his choice what happens, and that is what happened. We have been through this several times—on Monday, yesterday and today. The Prime Minister has provided the evidence. It is there for Ministers and Members to see. Ultimately, the decision was taken by the CPS not to proceed and we are all disappointed in that.

• 16 Oct 2025 · Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements · Hansard source

  More

  I think every Member of the House shares the concern that the case did not proceed, and that there was not enough evidence, but that decision was taken by the CPS.

• 16 Oct 2025 · Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Speaker. Having now had the opportunity to read the statements, Members will be able to confirm for themselves what the Prime Minister and other members of the Government have stated repeatedly: the DNSA faithfully, and with full integrity, set out the position of the previous UK Government and the various threats posed by the Chinese state to the UK, and did so in order to try to support a successful prosecution. The first and most substantive witness statement is from December 2023, under the last Government. The second and third, which are both much shorter, are from February and August 2025 respectively. It is clear from these statements that the substantive case and evidence submitted by the DNSA does not change materially throughout, and that all three documents clearly articulate the very serious threats posed by China. The second witness statement, in particular, highlights the specific details of some of the cyber-threats that we face, and emphasises that China is the “biggest state-based threat” to the UK’s national security. The third statement goes on to state that the Chinese intelligence services are “highly capable and conduct large scale espionage operations against the UK to advance the Chinese state’s interests and harm the…security of the UK.” It is clear from this evidence, which all can now see, that the DNSA took significant strides to articulate the threat from China in support of the prosecution. The decision on whether to proceed, as the Prime Minister made clear yesterday, was taken purely by the CPS. It is also clear that the three statements are constrained by the position of the Conservative Government on China at the time of the alleged offences. As the Prime Minister said yesterday and the Security Minister said on Monday, this Government’s first priority will always be national security and keeping this country safe. We wanted this case to proceed. I am sure all Members of the House did, and I know you did too, Mr Speaker. We are all profoundly disappointed that it did not.