Georgia Gould MP: speeches

Speeches

• 24 Apr 2025 · Data · Hansard source

  More

  The two issues are completely linked. To use the opportunities of AI, which are enormous, to personalise services and target prevention, we need to have a clear data picture. We need to be able to bring data together across different levels of Government. There is a huge amount of data in Government, but some of it is stuck in legacy systems and not shared properly. This is the absolute bedrock of the opportunity around AI, so it is something we are very committed to, especially working with local government.

• 24 Apr 2025 · Data · Hansard source

  More

  I would be delighted to meet the hon. Member. I am very passionate about this. In local government, I saw how difficult it was for frontline staff who were not able to get data from different services. Most importantly, citizens are having to tell their story to and share data with multiple services, which causes confusion. We are working very closely with the new digital centre of government on this, and we have an action plan to address it. However, I always welcome new ideas, because this could be really transformative for citizens.

• 24 Apr 2025 · Local Authority Procurement: Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  The guidance we put into the national procurement policy statement makes it clear that we want to deliver best value for money, which means not just cost but ensuring that we support growth and local suppliers. That allows local authorities to make decisions on what will create jobs and best opportunities for communities in the procurement of food.

• 24 Apr 2025 · Local Authority Procurement: Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  Growth is the No. 1 mission for this Government. We have learned from local authorities such as Hammersmith and Fulham, which built economic value into procurement. The Procurement Act 2023 makes new tools available, but what is critical is how they are used to deliver innovation and growth. The Government will be consulting on new plans to set targets for small and medium-sized enterprise use for the wider public sector. We have delivered extensive training and developed new communities of practice to help make the most of this huge opportunity. As my hon. Friend has said, much of this is about culture and the use of the tools. We will be working with local authorities around the country to deliver on this enormous opportunity.

• 24 Apr 2025 · Local Authority Procurement: Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the House’s continuing passion for procurement, and my hon. Friend has helped to lead the way in this area at Hammersmith and Fulham council. I have seen how much energy there is in local government to use procurement to deliver jobs and growth. The Government are working on plans to allow local authorities to reserve contracts for local employers. Public procurement can be a key tool in driving growth and supporting businesses across the economy. Our new national procurement policy statement looks to maximise spend with small businesses and asks contracting authorities to work collaboratively on local and regional growth plans.

• 6 Mar 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Clause 68 sets out how the powers in part 1 of the Bill variously apply or do not apply to the Crown, to Parliament and to the King and his estates, and in circumstances of grounds of national security. The clause sets important boundaries on the scope of part 1. As such, it is essential that it stands part of the Bill. The clause ensures that the Crown is bound by specific powers and provisions in the Bill. It applies in relation to premises used or held on behalf of the Crown —for example, a building owned by a Government Department—in the same way as any other premises. For instance, an authorised investigator could, if necessary, apply to a court for a warrant to enter, search and seize evidence from Crown premises. However, it does not bind the Crown in respect of some powers, specifically those in clauses 16 to 37, relating to recovery orders and recovery from bank accounts, and chapter 5, relating to civil penalties. If it did, the effect would be the Crown recovering money from itself or imposing a penalty on itself that it would pay to itself, simply moving money within its own accounts. Subsection (4) creates a power for the Minister to certify that it appears appropriate in the interests of national security that the powers of entry conferred by this part should not be exercised on Crown premises specified in the certificate. Authorised investigators could not seek a warrant to enter those premises to search for evidence. This carve-out exists because there are certain Crown premises where searching may compromise national security. It is important that this is respected. In that event, the PSFA would discuss with the relevant Department or agency what alternative approach may be possible. Finally, the clause states that the power of entry conferred by this part cannot be exercised on His Majesty’s private estates or premises occupied for the purposes of either House of Parliament. The King’s private estates are those held by His Majesty as a private person. This does not mean the Crown Estate—the sovereign’s public estates, which are managed by the Crown Estate commissioners on behalf of the Crown. In the incredibly unlikely event that evidence suggested that it was necessary to search the King’s private estates or either House of Parliament, the PSFA would request to be invited by the appropriate authority, which would be the Speaker or the Lord Speaker in the case of this House and the other place, respecting the privileges of Parliament. Clause 70 is the interpretation clause, which sets out the meaning of terms used in part 1. I do not propose to run through the whole list of terms. Many of them are straightforward and refer back to previous clauses we have debated, but some are important to understand the scope of this part or are used in a novel way. I will say a few words about them so that the Committee can understand them in the correct context. The first term is “authorised officer”, which we covered in clause 66. In this part, authorised officer has the meaning given in clause 66, which as we have already seen says that they must be employed in the civil service in the Minister’s Department. This means that other types of public sector workers, such as consultants or contractors, cannot be authorised officers, which is a safeguard on the use of the powers. The clause defines “fraud” as including “the offences in sections 1 and 11 of the Fraud Act 2006…and…the offence at common law of conspiracy to defraud.” The Committee will recall that we discussed this in the debate on clauses 1 and 2, and I can repeat the assurances that I gave then. The definition sets the scope of fraud in relation to the core functions of a Minister in clause 1, and it covers the three main fraud offences: fraud by false representation, fraud by failing to disclose information and fraud by abuse of position. It also covers the common-law offence of conspiracy, which requires that two or more individuals dishonestly conspire to commit a fraud against a victim. Together, these give the scope needed to tackle the key forms of public sector fraud. The clause defines “public authority” as “a person with functions of a public nature so far as acting in the exercise of those functions”. This sets out the scope of the Departments, bodies and agencies that the PSFA would be able to work with and on behalf of. The definition is deliberately wide to enable the PSFA to tackle public sector fraud wherever it may arise. It will allow the use of powers to investigate fraud against all central Government Departments and agencies—except HMRC and the DWP, because they already have existing powers—as well as local government and any arm’s length delivery mechanisms that deliver functions of a public nature. The clause defines “suspected fraud” as “conduct which the Minister has reasonable grounds to suspect may constitute fraud”. We discussed this definition in the debate on clause 3. Reasonable grounds to suspect is an objective test meaning a belief based on specific evidence that a reasonable person would hold. It is not just based on the investigator’s own subjective opinion. It is a reasonable test that asks, “Would an ordinary, reasonable person”—like you or me, Sir Desmond—“being in possession of the same facts as the investigator, agree that it was reasonable to suspect that fraud had occurred?” This is a common standard to initiate an investigation. Finally, beyond the definitions, the clause clarifies references to “giving a notice or other document” and sets out how court proceedings are considered to be finally determined. The clause is essential to ensure the correct understanding and interpretation of key terms used throughout part 1 of the Bill. Clause 71 states that all regulations under this part should be made using statutory instruments. This ensures a structured approach to the regulatory framework. The clause allows for the creation of different types of provisions, such as consequential, supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving measures. This flexibility helps to adapt regulations to various circumstances. The affirmative procedure requires that the regulations be approved by both Houses of Parliament, which ensures that there is oversight and accountability. The negative procedure allows regulations to be implemented promptly, but they can still be annulled by either House of Parliament if necessary. The option to convert regulations from the negative to the affirmative procedure ensures flexibility in response to the significance of particular regulatory provisions. Clause 71 is essential for establishing a coherent and responsive regulatory framework in the legislation. By mandating the use of statutory instruments, it promotes a structured process that enhances accountability and keeps the regulatory system transparent.

• 29 Jan 2025 · Outsourcing: Government Departments · Hansard source

  More

  This is my first time responding to a Westminster Hall debate, and it is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I join many Members in expressing my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) for his contribution, and I echo the comments that have been made about his constructive and thoughtful work on this issue. Many Members had only a short time to set out their views. My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) said that four minutes was not quite enough, given his 29 years’ experience. That far surpasses my few months, so I would welcome the opportunity to have further discussions with any colleagues across the House. Critical issues were raised about a whole range of public services, and I would welcome the opportunity to sit down with Members ahead of putting forward the new national procurement policy statement. I join many Members in paying tribute to the work of outsourced staff—the security guards, cleaners and catering teams—who play a vital role in supporting Government and who allow all of us to do our jobs. They serve the public and the public sector, and are, in the case of the security teams, the front door to Government. Whether staff are directly employed or contracted, they are engaging in vital public services, and these should be decent jobs with progression routes, as we have heard. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East is right to raise the topic of outsourcing. As the Government set out in our plan to make work pay, we need to learn the lessons from the collapse of Carillion and more effectively manage markets to ensure the right mix of provision. That means ending the previous Administration’s dogmatic drive to privatise our public services. I was interested to hear the comments about ideology, having watched for the last 14 years as an ideologically driven approach led to waste, poor value for money and, in some cases, poor public services—for example, the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) referenced the failed outsourcing of probation services. We must ensure that all contracts are transparent and accountable and provide value for money for the British taxpayer. I was surprised to hear the comments about progress. Like the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), I have a background in local government—I think we both have a background at Camden council. While I was in local government, I saw billions wasted on PPE, and I saw the waste of the test and trace contract, when those of us in local government knew that public health officials and housing staff were ready to go out and do that work. Yet, so much money went to private providers, and I saw the ballooning cost of consultants. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) referenced children’s homes. The new Government have had to step in to end the exploitative practice of some private sector organisations making excessive profits from services for vulnerable children. Under the previous Government, we saw a significant increase in privately run children’s homes, with a Competition and Markets Authority report suggesting that the 15 largest children’s home providers make an average 23% profit per year. Is that value for money? This Government have shone a light on those profits, set a new cap and given Ofsted new powers to investigate and impose fines for exploitative practices. As the leader of a council, I saw how insourced public services, when managed carefully over time, with robust assessment of benefits and outcomes, can deliver savings for taxpayers and better public services. During covid, I saw how our in-house repairs service immediately moved to delivering food, often volunteering to work long hours to support residents. I saw the pride and commitment that came from working for the council, and the greater flexibility and innovation that that could bring. I agree with the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington that there is huge innovation in the public sector. As we saw under the previous Government, outsourced services can too often deliver a race to the bottom on quality and standards, and a self-defeating approach that harms taxpayers and value for money. This Government are determined to deliver good public services and better value for money. That includes making decisions about how to deliver services to avoid the waste we saw under the previous Government. We have already begun to deliver reform of the frameworks for outsourcing, with provisions in the Employment Rights Bill to strengthen and reinstate the two-tier code introduced under the last Labour Government. The new Procurement Act will come into effect next month, creating a simpler and more flexible procurement system underpinned by a new mission-focused national procurement policy statement. I did not recognise the comments made about that work. I have engaged deeply with SMEs, businesses, the voluntary sector, social enterprise, contracting authorities, trade unions and a wide range of stakeholders to ensure that the NPPS delivers our missions for the country, with growth at the heart of what we want to achieve. The statement will set out the Government’s policy priorities, and contracting authorities will have to have regard to it when carrying out procurements. That will be the first step to ending the last Government’s ideological fixation with outsourcing. I am pleased to say that the statement is almost complete, as we continue to have those conversations, and I look forward to laying it before both Houses shortly. I want to respond directly to the points made about outsourcing. I agree with the position of Christina McAnea and Unison, which was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East, that a public interest test should be in place before services are outsourced, to ensure value for money and the best outcomes. The NPPS will set out how we plan to make it easier for public authorities to test the best possible model to provide value for money and outcomes for the taxpayer, and end the ideological presumption on outsourcing. Through these measures, the Government will achieve greater value for money for the people and businesses of this country, moving away from relying on a few large suppliers and being more open to investment across the country in the areas that need it most. Key to that is supporting SMEs. I hear so often from SMEs that they find engaging with Government procurement complex and burdensome. Part of the work we want to do involves diversifying the providers that come forward, whether that is SMEs, social enterprises or voluntary sector organisations. We have also begun to assess the areas of Government that could be done more effectively in house, and where there may be compelling reasons for Government to develop their own capabilities and capacity to deliver good value for money and better public services. Again, I welcome a wider discussion of that. That work will recognise the practical hurdles to building Government capacity, particularly in a constrained fiscal environment, and when many public services are under huge strain. Having brought a number of services in house in local government, I know that it can be very powerful and save money, but it also takes time, planning and investment. The lead-in times on procurement are significant, and there is no quick fix. However, active work is happening on those critical issues. We are clear that we will end the last Government’s tunnel vision on large-scale outsourcing and consider the best way to achieve our missions and the best outcomes for citizens. As I have set out, we want to see more diversity, including social enterprises, co-ops, mutuals, voluntary sector organisations and SMEs. We will use the measures in the Procurement Act to open up procurement to that more diverse supply base. Hon. Members spoke of ensuring that we have the right capacity to manage contracts, as well as transparency throughout the process, and that will be at the core of the work we are leading. We are clear that public sector procurement is an important engine of growth for the economy and that there are purpose-driven businesses providing good-quality jobs. However, as we have heard from some surveys, there is poor practice across the economy. That is why we have introduced the Employment Rights Bill to increase standards and ensure there are decent jobs, not just as part of Government contracts, but across the economy. I do not have a huge amount of time, and I will not go through all the measures, but they address some of the questions put to me today. The provisions in the Employment Rights Bill will empower Ministers to reinstate and strengthen the two-tier code through regulations and a statutory code of practice, which is critical. I end by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East for bringing forward this issue. As we work on the new NPPS, his insights and those of all those here are very welcome, and I am open to ideas from every part of the House. Close to £400 billion is spent on public procurement, which is a huge amount, and we need to ensure that it provides growth and opportunity across the country. We should use procurement to ensure that there are good jobs for our citizens in every community. Whenever we decide to spend taxpayers’ money, it is right that we make an assessment of what will deliver the best outcomes for citizens and value for money. Unlike the last Government, we will never put ideology before people.

• 23 Jan 2025 · Fraud: Public Sector · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend, as a local government leader during the pandemic, will know how hard things were for communities; sacrifices were made and people risked their lives to keep the rest of us safe. He will share my anger at those who used the national crisis to steal billions from the taxpayer. We will take action on that where the last Government failed. The Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill, which was introduced yesterday, will give the Government tough new powers to investigate and recover money stolen from the public and will double the time we have to bring those fraudsters to justice.

• 23 Jan 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  It was wonderful to visit Milton Keynes and to see the work of a pioneering Labour council. The work the Labour council has led to open up services to the NHS is a real example of the shift to community that the Government are committed to. Milton Keynes shows that when a wonderful MP works with a Labour council and the NHS amazing things can happen.

• 5 Dec 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for the time she spent with me last week setting out the opportunities of procurement and the needs of her community in Darlington. We have heard from the whole House today how important it is to back small and medium- sized enterprises that have roots in communities, and we are determined that the new national policy procurement statement will do that.

• 5 Dec 2024 · Public Procurement Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I spent the last few weeks meeting small and medium-sized enterprises, voluntary and community sector organisations, wider businesses and contracting authorities to discuss how we ensure that the approximately £300 billion that is spent each year on public sector procurement delivers for our communities. With this Government, procurement will deliver value for money, better public services and our national missions. The Procurement Act 2023 commences in February 2025, creating a simpler, more flexible procurement system under- pinned by a new mission-led national procurement policy statement to ensure that public procurement delivers on the Government’s missions.

• 5 Dec 2024 · Public Procurement Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the hon. Member to their place and look forward to meeting them across the Dispatch Box. Unfortunately, the last Government left this country in a terrible place, with public services in crisis. I was previously a council leader, and every single day I saw the absolute strain on our public services. People were waiting up to 12 hours for ambulances, which sometimes did not turn up. We have had to take action to invest in our public services in order to deliver growth. Through our procurement regime, we are already taking action to support SMEs, to ensure that money is not lost and to ensure that suppliers are paid quickly. I will set out more to the House in February—

• 5 Dec 2024 · Public Services Reform · Hansard source

  More

  As a former council leader, I have seen at first hand the crisis in public services, with people falling between the cracks of systems that are under extreme strain. To reform that, we need to get out of Whitehall and support workers across the public sector to do things differently. From intervening early to support families, a White Paper overhauling employment support and an ambitious programme of reforms of the NHS, this Government are determined to reform public services to deliver for citizens.

• 25 Jul 2024 · Public Procurement: Value for Money · Hansard source

  More

  As my hon. Friend says, public procurement is a key lever for delivering improved standards in business and in achieving social value. It is one of the levers in making sure we are growing our economy and supporting good jobs, something I saw in local government where Labour councils made huge strides in delivering social value through procurement. The Government’s plan to make work pay sets out that ambitious programme to value organisations that create local jobs, skills and wealth, and treat their workers well and equally.

• 22 Jul 2024 · Economy, Welfare and Public Services · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased to speak in a debate with so many strong female representatives, including the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), and I am really honoured to speak in a debate led by the first female Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has shown today what a force for change she is. I have found it incredibly moving to hear MPs across the House talk with such love and dedication about the places they represent. It has given this Parliament a deep grounding in the stories of people from every part of the UK. I feel deeply the trust put in me by the people of Queen’s Park and Maida Vale. In speaking here, I stand on the shoulders of some extraordinary women who have represented the different parts of Queen’s Park and Maida Vale. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) is someone who breaks through glass ceilings and lifts others up behind her. Nothing ever dims her spirit and her passion for tackling injustice. You need only walk down Harlesden High Street with her to see how she inspires people by her example—and sometimes her music. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq) is a formidable campaigner who was in the Chamber the day she was due to give birth because she needed to give her constituents a voice. She did not stop campaigning until her constituent Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe was safely home with her family. Those who know her will quickly learn that she never, ever gives up. She is always a voice for the people she cares about. Karen Buck gave an extraordinary 27 years of service to the residents of Westminster North. I was at a school in my constituency last week where the head said that Karen was the fourth emergency service, always at the end of a phone ready to help. I remember going to an elderly people’s lunch where the residents said, “You can be our MP—you are very nice. Just make sure that Karen comes to our residents’ meeting in July.” The wonderful team at the House Library sent me Karen’s maiden speech. It was no surprise to me that it was a passionate call to action on the housing conditions of her constituents. That passion has not dimmed for a second; it could be heard in every line of her 37 interventions on the Renters (Reform) Bill over 25 years later. She has shown that somebody with community running through their veins can move mountains. I will work every day to live up to the women who came before me—that includes you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and your sister Baroness McDonagh, who have both showed such amazing, dedicated service and have never given up fighting for constituents and the people of this country. Queen’s Park and Maida Vale is a place that means a huge amount to me. My great-grandfather came over to the UK when he was a teenager, fleeing the poverty and pogroms of Lithuania, and worked his way up to open a shop on Kilburn High Road. My family have lived and worked in the area ever since. Growing up in the heart of London, I attended Hallfield primary school and saw how many children were cut out of the opportunities on their doorstep; that has driven me ever since. The need that we see now is greater than ever. My inbox and my surgeries are full of people facing the homelessness crisis and skipping meals to feed their family—all in walking distance of the Chamber. Queen’s Park and Maida Vale is a place with huge need, but also with huge heart. It has welcomed not just my family but families from so many different backgrounds. We are home to the Bangladesh Caterers Association; the Lauderdale Road synagogue; the UK Albanian Muslim Community and Cultural Centre; Harlesden, which is the unofficial capital of reggae and the starting point for so many iconic artists and producers; Kilburn, a centre of creativity with a claim to be the birthplace of cinema; and the amazing, diverse community of Church Street. We are a community that is rich in spirit and dynamism. In 1879, Queen’s Park was chosen to host the royal agricultural show, the Victorian equivalent of the Olympics. It was a very British affair—it rained most of the time—but ordinary people campaigned to preserve the open space, and it is still a thriving park today. Down the road, Walterton and Elgin Community Homes is a shining example of community leadership. We also have the country’s only urban parish council. Queen’s Park is the birthplace of the pride of west London, Queens Park Rangers football club. I can tell the House that being a QPR fan is almost as good as this Chamber for getting to know the communities of the UK; it means spending rainy days in Cardiff, Preston, Southend and Tranmere, embracing again and again the triumph of hope over experience. I have always been an optimist. Despite 14 tough years in local government, including seven as Camden council leader, I have never lost hope, because every day I can see the power of communities. I was elected as a councillor in 2010, and at events, when people used to say to me, “What do you do?”, I would proudly say to them, “I am a councillor.” They would say, “That is so wonderful; you do such wonderful work as a therapist.” I would have to say, “No, not that kind of counsellor. I am a Labour party councillor.” They would either swiftly go and get a drink or talk to me about dog mess. Street cleaning and rubbish collection are essential services that councils deliver—my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington (Mrs Hamilton) once introduced me as the person who makes sure that Keir Starmer’s bins are collected—but we often forget how much more local government is. I see that every day, watching the work of Brent and Westminster, two brilliant Labour councils in my constituency. Councils are lifelines for communities. They provide care for the children and adults who most need support. They are leaders of place, bringing services and people together to make change. I have seen local government staff go above and beyond time and again, fuelled by love and dedication, because there was no one else there, whether they were working with communities to deliver food during covid or supporting Afghan evacuees. When things have been hard, they have held together our communities, finding unity in difference. The Gracious Speech sets out bold new proposals in the English devolution Bill to unlock the energy and creativity of communities. It sets out Bills to fulfil Karen Buck’s long-held campaign to end no-fault evictions and reform the leasehold system. The proposals will support the people of Queen’s Park and Maida Vale who come out every day to build their community—the youth workers, the community gardeners and those running the North Paddington food bank, who wish it did not have to exist. These are people putting hope into action because they believe that things can change. I know that as I sit in the Chamber, I will have their voices and stories with me, but I will also have the stories that I have heard from hon. Members from across the UK. We all have that in common: the privilege and the responsibility of bringing the voices of our community to this place. We may debate and disagree, but I hope to always listen and learn, and remember that we are being entrusted to weave those stories, hopes and ambitions together into a national vision for this country—one that governs for all and leaves no one behind.