Mike Wood MP: speeches

389 published records · newest first.

Speeches

25 Feb 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source
More
Q How would you see that independence interacting with the decision-making processes in the Bill, which largely rely on ministerial or departmental decisions in terms of the orders for information? John Smart: That needs to be determined in terms of the overall governance structure of the organisation, as and when it is set up, because it would clearly need to have an independent board, and some of the oversight powers proposed in the Bill would need to be independent of the management of that business. I think it would require quite a lot of thought around the overall governance structure, the way it operates and the way that the day-to-day management of the business is independent of the oversight powers.
25 Feb 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source
More
Q What role will Parliament have in scrutinising those codes of practice? Andrew Western: The codes of practice will be laid before both Houses. They will be published as the legislation sets out.
25 Feb 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source
More
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.
25 Feb 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source
More
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.
25 Feb 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source
More
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.
25 Feb 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source
More
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.
25 Feb 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source
More
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.
25 Feb 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source
More
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.
25 Feb 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source
More
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.
25 Feb 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source
More
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.
25 Feb 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source
More
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.
25 Feb 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source
More
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.
25 Feb 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source
More
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.
25 Feb 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source
More
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.
25 Feb 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source
More
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.
24 Feb 2025 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source
More
2. What assessment she has made of the potential merits of extending the qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain.
24 Feb 2025 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source
More
There is clearly a cost to doing nothing about the current indefinite leave to remain policy, and a recent Centre for Policy Studies report estimates the net lifetime cost as £234 billion for those expected to be granted ILR over the next five years. What is the Minister’s assessment of that cost?
13 Feb 2025 · Infected Blood Compensation Scheme · Hansard source
More
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.
10 Feb 2025 · Inheritance Tax Relief: Farms · Hansard source
More
When Jane’s husband died just under three years ago, their farm passed to their son—the fifth generation of the family to farm that land. Their accountant says that if that had happened after the Government’s changes, the farm would be looking at an inheritance tax bill of between £80,000 and £100,000. Does my hon. Friend know of any farmer who has that kind of money available without selling off a huge chunk of their farm?
10 Feb 2025 · Inheritance Tax Relief: Farms · Hansard source
More
Will the Minister give way?
29 Jan 2025 · Outsourcing: Government Departments · Hansard source
More
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.
29 Jan 2025 · Outsourcing: Government Departments · Hansard source
More
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?
29 Jan 2025 · Outsourcing: Government Departments · Hansard source
More
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.
29 Jan 2025 · Outsourcing: Government Departments · Hansard source
More
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—
27 Jan 2025 · Storm Éowyn · Hansard source
More
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.

Published records only — not a full account of an MP’s work. How we work →