Seven Principles of Public Life

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Wednesday 7th September 2022 Westminster Hall

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) for securing the debate, and I thank my other colleagues for all the excellent speeches from them so far.

The seven principles of public life—selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership—were brought in after the Nolan inquiry, following scandals in public life. They have been embedded in my brain since they were adopted. They permeated our understanding as councillors; they were the principles by which we worked and made decisions. We sign up to them when we are elected as MPs or councillors, or assume a variety of roles, but so do a large number of public servants when they are appointed or employed. They are integral to our public life. However, what happens in Parliament, and by Government, matters throughout our public life. That spreads beyond this place.

I said that it was embedded in my brain but, as a Quaker, truth and integrity is also embedded in my core. For those colleagues who go into Prayers, every day they pray that Members may never

“lead the nation wrongly through love of power, desire to please, or unworthy ideals but laying aside all private interests and prejudices keep in mind their responsibility to seek to improve the condition of”

—apologies for the language—

“all mankind”.

I believe, as others have said, that the vast majority of MPs do comply with the seven principles in all they do, and actively and willingly sign them and follow them. However, sadly, we have seen too many examples of where that has not been the case. Too often, in the last few years, that has come from the very top of Government, and from, as of yesterday, the previous Prime Minister—the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson). My constituent, Peter Oborne, identified 50 lies made by that Prime Minister in this House between the general election in 2019 and January of this year—when he stopped counting, but there have been many examples since. Honesty is one of the seven principles.

Peter Oborne said, I thought quite helpfully, that

“we…had an area of public discourse which belonged to everybody, a common ground where rival parties could coexist”.

He goes on to say:

“Political lying is a form of theft. It takes away people’s democratic rights. Voters cannot make fair judgements on the basis of falsehoods.”

That is just addressing just one of the seven principles.

Over the past three years, we have seen a bonfire of ethics and integrity. We have seen the Government try to overrule the Standards Committee; we have seen stories about Conservative MPs being threatened by Government Whips; and we have seen the very basic standards around public life degraded in front of us. The new Prime Minister stood by and supported the previous Government, who took a blowtorch to the basic ethics of public life.

I was particularly concerned to see, last week, that the Government have spent £130,000 commissioning a legal opinion on the Privileges Committee investigation into the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip. I am not sure why the Cabinet Office felt it was a good use of public money to get an opinion on a matter that was for this House, and this House alone.

Under that Prime Minister, we saw the Government—I would say, disgracefully—undermine the basic structures that uphold standards and integrity in politics. Not only did they try to overrule the Standards Committee, but the Prime Minister refused to sack his own Ministers when they were found to have breached the ministerial code. What is the point of having a ministerial code if it is not enforced? Conservative Ministers have even gone as far as giving the finger to those protesting outside Downing Street.

Surely the fundamental problem we have is that, over the past three years, Ministers have felt able to act with impunity. A Minister unlawfully overruled a planning decision to help a Conservative property developer and party donor he had met at a dinner. We have seen a Cabinet Minister rebuked for bullying civil servants but not sacked. We have seen crony contracts worth millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money awarded to friends and allies of Ministers without due diligence. If that had happened in local government when I was a councillor, we would have been sacked, and probably the Government inspectors would have been in and taken over from the powers of the councillors. Yet, when they were asked to provide evidence in court, they magically claimed their phones had been wiped.

We have seen more. We have seen a Government who suspend Parliament when they fear they will not succeed in what they want to do; who expel Conservative Members from the party, breaking the rules that they had passed; and who refuse to adopt their own code of conduct. Those are all symptoms of a failure to live the values of the seven principles. As my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) said, they should not just be on a dusty shelf; all of us should live and breathe them every day. Perhaps they should be up in gold leaf around the walls of Westminster Hall, the Chamber or Members’ Lobby, so that they are always there in front of us.

This matters to people’s faith in democracy. It matters if we want people to vote and have faith that their vote matters, and have faith in what it is they are voting for this time and next time—in all elections, not just to Parliament. They must have faith in their other elected representatives. It matters to the reputation of this country. We could have a debate on every single one of the Nolan principles—but that would take up the 90 minutes that we have been allowed for this debate today.

If we are not to undermine Parliament, our democracy and the reputation of this country, we must take action. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has made three serious, genuine proposals. Given his deep experience of the history of Parliament and his role in our Parliament now, we should listen and take action. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree said, we have to do better by being better.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Wheeler]

Thank you for that insightful comment. As the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth mentioned councils and corruption, I suggest that she look at Sandwell Council and the process of awarding contracts as an example of a lack of transparency and process.

[Ruth Cadbury]

I am not saying that every council is perfect; I am saying that a process is used in local government. I do not know the details of the Sandwell example, but such things are the exception to the vast majority of local governments and councillors in the UK. I know how the mechanisms work from my 25 years of experience as a councillor, although some of that was before the Nolan principles came in, and I know that there is little leeway for elected councillors.

[Mrs Wheeler]

I suggest that the hon. Lady look at the Sandwell case.

As for gatherings and investigations, the Government asked the country to make extraordinary sacrifices, and as the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) said, he has taken personal responsibility, acknowledging people’s anger and hurt and offering a full and unreserved apology for the mistakes made, and he has left office. Any investigations that were not completed by Lord Geidt prior to his resignation will remain outstanding. Members will appreciate that the Prime Minister has just been appointed, so decisions on matters relating to the independent adviser will be taken in due course.

I will finish in order to leave time for the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree. The Government continue to hold public standards in the highest importance, and places the seven principles of public life at the foundation of ethical conduct and integrity. The Prime Minister is fully committed to ensuring all Ministers are held to account to maintain high standards of behaviour, and to behaving in a way that upholds the highest standards of propriety, as the public rightly expect. As part of this commitment, we continue to carefully consider the recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life and others, and we will be updating the House on this work in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Wednesday 12th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I certainly will, and I join my hon. Friend in thanking the wonderful volunteers. I will do what I can to assist her in protecting that beautiful green space.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

Q5. This is a different topic to that raised by my right hon. and learned Friend, the Leader of the Opposition, but it is related. Last week at Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister was asked whether his previous claims about inflation were unfounded. In his reply he told the House that he had said “no such thing”. Within minutes the inevitable happened, and people were watching videos on social media, saying exactly that. Would the Prime Minister like to take this opportunity to correct the record and apologise for misleading the House on that matter?

[Mr Speaker]

That would be inadvertently misleading the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Wednesday 15th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We are investing massively in overseas aid—this country is spending £10 billion a year on overseas aid. I think that if you look at what we are doing on aid, on the Foreign Office and on Defence, we are, at £54 billion, the biggest spender on overseas activities of any country in Europe. My hon. Friend is an expert on foreign affairs, but I am assured by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary that the information that has recently trickled into his ears is fake news.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

Q11. Transport for London faces serious financial difficulties solely due to the pandemic causing a collapse in fares income. Emergency covid funding to TfL expires the day after tomorrow. Prior to the pandemic, the Mayor of London spent four years improving TfL’s finances after—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There will be a nightmare in a moment. Can I just say that we want to get through the questions? I was hoping to get some extra people in, and you are not helping me do so. Come on in, Ruth Cadbury.

[Ruth Cadbury]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Prior to the pandemic, the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, spent four years improving TfL’s finances after his predecessor inexplicably bargained away TfL’s £700 million annual Government grant. By failing to meet the Mayor on extending the emergency covid grant, the Government are putting the city’s economy and environment at risk. Rail companies have had additional support. Will the Prime Minister instruct silent Shapps to meet the Mayor immediately so that buses and tubes can continue to keep London moving from Friday?

[The Prime Minister]

This happens to be one of the subjects that I know more about than probably anybody else in the House. When I was Mayor and chairman of Transport for London, we had our finances in balance because I ran a responsible fares policy. When I left the mayoralty, we had Crossrail in surplus and our reserves in surplus. Actually, what happened was that the Labour Mayor of London embarked on a reckless, unfunded fares policy, cutting fares recklessly so as to leave a huge black hole in Transport for London’s finances. Yes, we have the greatest capital—[Interruption.] We will of course help the stricken Labour Mayor in any way that we can, but the blame lies fairly and squarely with City Hall.

Gurkha Pensions

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Monday 22nd November 2021 Westminster Hall

[Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 594155, relating to Gurkha pensions.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I will start by thanking Roy Brinkley, who himself is a veteran of the Grenadier Guards, for creating this petition. In total, it has attracted more than 107,000 signatures from all over the country, including 99 from Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, enabling us today to discuss the important issues underlying the petition. I also thank Roy and his friend Jack for taking the time to talk to my office earlier today about the petition and what it means to them. I apologise for not being able to meet them in person; sadly, unexpected parliamentary business meant that I had to ask my staff to take the meeting on my behalf. Roy is here in the Public Gallery, and many Gurkhas have turned up in Westminster today to show their support for the campaign. Sadly, we are likely to be disrupted by votes, but I hope that Roy and everyone outside will feel that we have done their campaign justice this evening.

When preparing for today’s debate, I realised that I have not yet spoken on the Gurkhas in this place. I approach this topic as someone who holds all members of our armed forces in the highest possible regard. As a bit of family history, my great-great-uncle, Allan Gullis—who still lives today—fought on D-day; my grandfather and hero, Terrence Gullis, served in the Royal Marines during the Suez crisis; and my maternal grandfather, William Beacham, served in the Royal Air Force. There is also a strong veterans community in my area of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke. We are proud to be the home of the Staffordshire Regiment. In Kidsgrove, the Royal British Legion has created a beautiful and touching war memorial garden, which is maintained and used all year round, and in Smallthorne, we have the fantastic veterans breakfast club at the Green Star pub, run by Martyn Hunt and Paul Horton. This family background, and the strong ties to the armed services that we have in Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, were key motivations behind the Desecration of War Memorials Bill, which I tabled in June last year with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) to secure better protection for memorials to our glorious dead.

On top of that, today’s debate comes at a poignant time, following on so soon from Remembrance Sunday. Every year, we hold poignant services across north Staffordshire and our United Kingdom in memory of our glorious dead, and this year, it was a real privilege to be able to attend the memorial service at Tunstall memorial gardens and to lay wreaths and pay respects at memorials across my constituency. This year, it has also been very moving to be able to plant a cross in Parliament’s inaugural remembrance garden on behalf of the people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke in memory of heroes such as Gunner Zak Cusack from Smallthorne and so many other brave men and women who served Queen and country. As such, I speak today as someone who knows just how amazing all our veterans are, and I hope I will do this subject the justice it deserves.

First of all, let me say that I know how highly regarded the Gurkhas are and have been for over 200 years. Their service to the British Crown, both here and overseas, has been marked by excellence and sacrifice. As Roy said to my team earlier, they are some of the most loyal soldiers this country has ever had, and have served on the frontlines of every war that the UK has fought in for the past 200 years. Prince Harry famously served alongside them during his 2007-08 tour of Afghanistan, and commented that

“when you know you are with the Gurkhas…there’s no safer place to be”.

That record of excellence and heroism goes somewhat under the radar, so I thank Joanna Lumley and campaigners like her for bringing the Gurkhas into the limelight. Like many people, I became aware of the problem Gurkhas have been facing, because of Joanna’s tireless efforts and all she has done to get this issue on our political agenda. More recently, we have had our attention refocused by the hunger strike outside Downing Street—indeed, I understand that Roy knows one of the hunger strikers personally. Having spoken to colleagues in the Ministry of Defence and other colleagues in this place before today’s debate, I know that the Gurkhas’ service is incredibly highly valued and respected. Their distinguished service is a source of immense pride in both the UK and Nepal.

From engaging with Roy, I understand that the crux of the issue is the pension scheme, and the concerns of many Gurkhas relate to the historic Gurkha pension scheme that ran from 1948 to 2007. Roy is seeking equal pension rights pre-1997, including back pay. The scheme differed from the arrangements for the rest of the British armed forces, being based on the Indian army model, because the Brigade of Gurkhas was based in Nepal until 1 July 1997. Despite that, I understand that for most Gurkha veterans the 1948 Gurkha pension scheme provides a pension at least as good as, and in many cases better than, that given to their British counterparts with identical periods of service. Under the Gurkha pension scheme all Gurkhas who retired before 1 July 1997 also qualified for an immediate pension after only 15 years of service. This meant that, typically, they would qualify for a pension in their 30s. By contrast, before 1975 British soldiers had to serve at least 22 years before they could receive a pension. That meant Gurkhas were receiving pension payments for over 25 years before most British soldiers of the same rank and length of service qualified for any payments.

Following the change in the home base for the Brigade of Gurkhas in 1997, and a review of their terms and conditions of service in 2007, came a change to their pensions. Following this review, it was decided that the difference between the terms and conditions of service of the Gurkhas and those of their British counterparts would be eliminated. For Gurkhas currently serving, and those with service on or after 1 July 1997, there would be an offer to transfer to the armed forces pension scheme. The reason for this cut-off was that that was when the UK became the home base for the Brigade of Gurkhas and changes in immigration rules, backdated to 1 July 1997, meant there was an increased likelihood of retired Gurkhas settling in the UK on discharge. This change, to better reflect the changed circumstances of the Brigade of Gurkhas, who were no longer based in Nepal, was most welcome. However, it clearly has not solved all the outstanding issues.

It is welcome that there has been ongoing engagement between the UK Government, Nepali embassy officials and Gurkha veteran groups. The former Minister for the Armed Forces, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), met repeatedly with Nepali Ministers and veterans groups to discuss the outstanding issues. This led to the production of the technical report, with the Gurkha veterans’ grievances, together with the UK Government’s responses, set out in one document. This engagement has led to improvements in the Gurkha pension scheme, and in March 2019 a new package of measures was announced, including an increase to pensions under the Gurkha pension scheme of between 10% and 34% above annual inflation. There was also a new £25 million investment in medical and healthcare facilities in Nepal for Gurkha veterans.

The Government have since agreed to reconsider the decision on the increase to pensions made in 2019, with a public consultation earlier this year that sought views on how changes should be implemented to the Gurkha pension scheme. That consultation closed earlier this year, and after considering responses Ministers will make a fresh decision on the size of the uplift. The Ministry of Defence has also agreed to start a bilateral committee in December to discuss all Gurkha veteran welfare issues. This move is very welcome, but I understand from what Roy has said that, as yet, there is no certainty over the timings of this important committee. If it is possible, I would very much appreciate the Minister sharing more details of these plans in his response.

Another key issue that Roy raised with me was the ability of Gurkhas and their families to settle in the United Kingdom, to be granted citizenship and to have the right to vote. Non-UK service personnel, including Gurkhas, can also apply for settlement in the UK on discharge if they have served a minimum of four years and meet the requirements of the immigration rules. Settlement gives people the right to live, work and study here for as long as they like and to apply for benefits if they are eligible; they can use it to apply for British citizenship. However, I recognise that although there is a straightforward route to settlement the current system places a financial liability on those personnel and their families, costing £2,389 per person. I am therefore delighted that the MOD and the Home Office are currently analysing the responses received to a draft policy proposal to waive fees for non-UK service personnel if they apply to settle in the UK at the end of their military service, provided certain criteria are met.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I am pleased that the hon. Member raises the issue of immigration fees. Does he not think that the Home Office is fleecing Gurkhas and other ex-service personnel by charging £2,000 per person for a process that costs only £200 to administer?

[Jonathan Gullis]

I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s intervention. She probably will not be shocked that I will not use the word “fleecing”. However, I was going on to say that I wholeheartedly support the idea of waiving this fee. The Gurkhas have served our country—their country—and they have kept me, my daughter and the people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke safe. It is only right and fair that people who are willing to put their lives on the line for the United Kingdom’s safety get the respect that they deserve. I therefore implore the Minister and the Home Office, which I am sure will be watching the debate, to do the right thing and waive the fees for non-UK armed forces personnel who have served their country and who meet the requirements. We have a fantastic Gurkhas veterans community across the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

Thank you, Dr Huq; it is an honour to speak under your chairship for the first time. Hopefully I will not take as long as five minutes. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) on his excellent speech. I also thank him for the interventions he took, which was very generous of him.

As the Member representing half of the borough of Hounslow, with my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) representing the other half, I know that we speak for our local community when we say how proud we are of Hounslow’s large Gurkha community. We are proud not only of their loyal service to our country, including in the fight against fascism in world war two, but of their years of service locally in civic life, through their work with charities and through the many small businesses that play a huge role in our local economy. As my hon. Friend said, the mayor of Hounslow for 2021-22, Councillor Bishnu Gurung, served as a staff sergeant with the Gurkhas. He retired in 1995 after 19 years of service, having received both a long service medal and a good conduct award. After completing his service and settling in Hounslow, he works full time as a London bus driver and is chairman of the Gurkha Nepalese Community Hounslow. He is such a good reminder that a Gurkha’s service does not end when they retire.

It was heartbreaking to see a group of Gurkhas on hunger strike back in August. The fact that they were pushed to such lengths shows how ignored they felt. I welcome the fact that they have since met Defence Ministers and that talks are ongoing about a number of issues. We have already touched on immigration fees.

[Seema Malhotra]

My hon. Friend talks about the Gurkhas’ ongoing service, describing the journey of our mayor in Hounslow and others. Does she agree that it is indicative that he has chosen SSAFA as his mayor’s charity this year, drawing into all he does the story of the veteran community and their engagement in our public life?

[Ruth Cadbury]

My hon. Friend and I were at the mayor’s fundraising event just three weeks ago, where there was a wonderful presentation from SSAFA. We congratulate the Gurkha community and Councillor Gurung on his fundraising, support and time spent volunteering for SSAFA.

I will not repeat the points already made about immigration fees. I am concerned about an issue that has not yet been raised. Many Gurkhas living on low incomes because of the pension problem will have been impacted by the decision to cut £1,000 a year—£20 a week—from universal credit. With more than 30,000 families claiming universal credit in Hounslow alone, that cut will affect a number of Gurkha families. The issue was raised as part of the hunger strike. Surely, given their service to this country and communities across the land, Gurkhas deserve better than being forced to survive on the edge of poverty. I hope the Minister will make clear just what our Government are doing for all those Gurkhas who gave up so much in service to our nation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Wednesday 14th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend. Yes, I certainly will encourage her and everybody else to shop local as we come out of lockdown, as I very much hope that we will be able to do. My right hon. Friend the Communities Secretary has announced that £830 million of funding from the future high streets fund has been allocated to areas, including my hon. Friend’s, to encourage that shopping that we all hope and want to see.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab) [V]]

May I extend my condolences and those of my constituents to the Queen and the royal family for their sad loss, and to the families and colleagues of Cheryl Gillan and Shirley Williams? Will the Prime Minister tell the House when he last spoke to former Prime Minister David Cameron?

[The Prime Minister]

The honest truth—I cannot remember when I last spoke to Dave, but if the hon. Lady wants to know whether I have had any contact with him about any of the matters that have been in the press, the answer is no.

Covid-19: Road Map

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Monday 22nd February 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The tourism sector is absolutely vital for our country and the faster that we can get it open, the better, but the best way to open it up fastest is to have a road map from which we do not deviate and on which we are not forced to go backwards. That is what we are setting out today and I am glad that we have my hon. Friend’s support.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab) [V]]

The Prime Minister has today acknowledged the importance of holidays abroad but also that strict quarantine is essential to address the global transmission of covid. The aviation sector has estimated that, at best, aviation will return in the UK to only a third of 2019 levels this year and that full recovery could take five years, so when will the Government release their delayed aviation recovery plan, and what additional support will they provide for communities such as mine and the Prime Minister’s, who are dependent on the aviation sector for employment?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady will be hearing a lot more about that and other matters on 12 April.

Covid-19

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Wednesday 6th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

There is no reason to think that any new strain of the virus is vaccine resistant. On my right hon. Friend’s point about testing, I can say that mass lateral flow testing in communities across the country will continue to be rolled out, because we still believe in its usefulness.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab) [V]]

As my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition said, whether it is on exams, financial support or the measures on test and trace, the Government seem to sit and wait for the situation to reach boiling point before they act. However, throughout the pandemic, most other Governments have acted early and have clearly communicated contingency plans. Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that the problem is his wait-and-see leadership strategy, which he needs urgently to revise so that the Government can get a grip?

[The Prime Minister]

I thought I understood the hon. Lady to be attacking the Government’s wait-and-see position on the vaccines, but I really do not think that anyone in their right mind could accuse us of moving too slowly in that respect. Indeed, she might add to her script that this country has vaccinated more than any other country in Europe put together.

Covid-19: Winter Plan

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Monday 23rd November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

I can give my right hon. Friend exactly that assurance, not least because gyms will be able to reopen in all tiers, and I recognise the enormous efforts that most gyms have made to ensure that they are covid-secure.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I talked to Hounslow’s director of public health this morning. She welcomes the opportunity to have rapid lateral flow testing under her local jurisdiction, and we both welcome the fact that the Government have finally recognised that local health and public health professionals are essential to the successful tackling of infections such as covid. However, councils and health trusts cannot roll out rapid testing for vulnerable groups, employ, train and enforce in the way described by the Prime Minister and roll out the vaccination programme without significant additional resources. The Army has been helping with the rapid testing in Liverpool, but will the Government adequately resource local authorities and local health trusts to deliver what is needed?

[Matt Hancock]

The hon. Lady is right to praise local public health officials. Local directors of public health have done an amazing amount of work throughout this crisis, and we work incredibly closely with them right across the country. It is very important that further funding will come forward for those areas in higher restrictions, not least because of the amount of work that we all need to do together.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Thursday 1st October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

What assessment he has made of the adequacy of (a) supplier performance and (b) value for money achieved under Government contracts issued in response to the covid-19 outbreak.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

What assessment he has made of the adequacy of (a) supplier performance and (b) value for money achieved under Government contracts issued in response to the covid-19 outbreak.

[Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)]

What assessment he has made of the adequacy of (a) supplier performance and (b) value for money achieved under Government contracts established in response to the covid-19 outbreak.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julia Lopez]

The DHSC has procured over 32 billion items from UK-based manufacturers and international partners—an incredibly difficult task at an incredibly difficult time. We received over 24,000 offers of help from 15,000 individual suppliers, and all were prioritised according to volume, price, clinical acceptability and lead time, meaning the time from an offer being accepted by the DHSC to a supplier delivering the items. Of course I am happy to look into any offer of help from a business that was found wanting, but I refer the hon. Member to the view outlined by the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), who praised the Department’s response to procurement.

[Ruth Cadbury]

Track and trace services, when led by experienced public health teams, have been more effective, and at lower cost, than the outsourced system in NHS England. In Wales, the contact rate for track and trace is over 90%, whereas in England, it hovers at a little over 70%. When will the Government recognise the importance of value for money and redirect their multimillion-pound procurement towards long-established local health networks?

[Julia Lopez]

It has been an extremely challenging time, as I have said, and the private sector has been a valuable partner in everything we have done. The contracts awarded have been extremely valuable in ensuring that we can deliver capacity at pace. If the hon. Lady has any concerns, I am happy to look into them.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Wednesday 16th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Robinson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I have great regard for him. We served on the Defence Committee together. I commend him for his service to this country and to our Province of Northern Ireland.

The arguments advanced are fundamentally wrong. They never point to who is going to engage in violence. They never condemn the threat of violence that would frustrate a legitimate political decision being made—they never reach that far. They never point to which part of the Belfast agreement they take issue with. They say, “This drives a coach and horses through the Belfast agreement”—you will hear it and read it in Hansard day in, day out. I say, show me the clause—show me the provision that it breaches. When we ask that question, then we get to the next stage—“Ah, but it is the spirit of the Belfast agreement that you are interfering with.”

I caution Members, particularly those who are not from Northern Ireland and who want to be saying and doing the right thing, and advocating the right position, but perhaps do not have the full picture: when you hear that argument related to European Union matters and to Brexit issues in this Bill, you are hearing it through a one-dimensional prism. I am not saying that nationalists are not entitled to their nationalism just as I am entitled to my Unionism—we are all entitled to our perspectives—but they present this injury to the Belfast agreement in a way that suggests it is a one-dimensional document. They suggest that the only concern within the fragility of peace in Northern Ireland is the satisfaction of those who look to Dublin—those who have an aspiration of unity in the island of Ireland—without reflecting on the fact that the document itself is a balance that brings communities together and allows them to co-operate with one another. And that has to include Unionism too. It has to include Unionists in Northern Ireland who look to London and believe that the Union is best for us all. For as long as we hear and listen to those arguments, never proven, and for as long as we say, “I’m sorry, we can’t make a legitimate political decision because of the fear—the fantasy—of something that may go wrong in future”, we see this only through the prism of one perspective, and we will end up making the wrong choice.

I say that not to attack Members, who are entitled to their own views, but to say careful and look a bit beyond some of the arguments. This Bill does not protect the internal market of the United Kingdom. It is a very good move for those who are concerned about ECJ application and state aid rules affecting businesses in GB. That is the intended purpose of clause 46 and some of the other clauses around state aid. There is nothing in clause 46 or clause 47 without our amendment, or indeed anything, that turns back the clock on the agreements around state aid rules of the European Union applying to Northern Ireland, and nor will there be. That is not an aspiration of the Government. The Government’s perspective is that those issues have been resolved.

In speaking to amendment 22, which I do not believe will be pushed to a vote, I hope that Members who are present this evening and respectfully listening to what I have to say will be here on Monday, when we consider and thoughtfully focus on the Northern Ireland aspects of trade from GB to NI and NI to GB. Those are two different propositions because of the protocol. They are fundamentally different. When we talk about access to the UK’s single market, we are only talking about selling to GB, not buying from it.

I ask that, over the next number of days, Members reflect on some of those issues and that when we meet on Monday to consider the Northern Ireland implications of the Bill and the wider underpinning agreements that already exist and are not intended to change, they reflect on the amendments that we put forward and proceed on that basis.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I rise to support the amendments standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), who I must say made an impressive opening speech on Monday. Those of us elected in 2015 are old enough to remember when we were told we would get chaos if he was elected Prime Minister. As I look at the current Government, the word “chaos” feels like an understatement.

The seat I represent is in west London, but I know that many of my constituents care deeply about the Union of the four nations of the UK, the UK’s reputation and the credibility of the UK and the rule of law. The debate is not about whether people support or oppose Brexit. Saying that, I voted against triggering article 50 back in 2017, because I knew that it would take time to sort out the nuts and bolts of Brexit and that we had a long way to go, but we now have only three months until we leave the EU single market. As we can see from the mess in this Bill, there is still an awful long way to go. That hits business, it hits people and it hits our nations.

The debate is, however, about how our Government approach devolution and our future relations with the devolved nations, as well as our current and future trade partners. That approach is, in my view, deeply flawed. The Bill is an act of self-destruction in the middle of a destructive pandemic. In the clauses we are discussing today, we see powers and money pulled away from the devolved nations while we are all caught up in a race to the bottom on standards.

The Government’s White Paper claims that they will legislate in a way that “respects the devolution settlement”. However, as many have already said in the debate, the Bill does the exact opposite. With due respect to the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), I am sorry—I disagree. The Bill leads to a significant recentralisation of power away from the devolved Administrations and back to Whitehall, undermining so many of the very many benefits and the core principles of devolution.

[Jonathan Gullis]

I am going to try asking this question, as a number of my hon. Friends have. Which specific powers that the Welsh Government and the Scottish Government already have are being completely taken away? Clause 47 says “to provide financial assistance”. I do not understand how “assistance” means completely taking power away. “Assistance” means to assist.

[Ruth Cadbury]

I am happy to respond to the hon. Member. Clause 46 specifically says:

“A Minister of the Crown may, out of money provided by Parliament, provide financial assistance to any person… or in connection with, any of the following purposes”.

And so it goes on. The power is all in a Minister. That is taking power away from the devolved Governments.

We know that this is a Government who enjoy hoarding power and consistently ignore devolved government, whether it is local councils, city hall or devolved Governments. “Centralisation, centralisation, centralisation” is the mantra from this Government, and it has been since 2010.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Gullis]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Ruth Cadbury]

I will not, because time is short, and I have already given way once.

A central plank of our devolution settlement has been the right of devolved areas to set their own priorities, yet the Bill undermines that by giving Ministers the power to provide funding over a wide range of issues, from culture to sport and economic development. Many voters in red wall seats changed their allegiance at the election, and according to the polling, many of them did so because they felt divorced from Westminster and Whitehall. That is true of people in the devolved countries. In Scotland and Northern Ireland, they voted strongly away from this Government and also away from Brexit in the referendum.

These powers will only make people in the UK feel further divorced from decision making that affects their lives, on issues such as culture, sport and economic development. The explanatory notes to the Bill even accept that, saying that these powers

“fall within wholly or partly devolved areas”.

Members need not take my word for it. The Welsh Government have called this Bill

“an attack on democracy and an affront to the people of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, who have voted in favour of devolution on numerous occasions.”

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Ruth Cadbury]

I will not, because other Members want to speak.

Finally, I want to address state aid. We have witnessed a rather interesting piece of spin from the Government and their supporters. One of the central aims of the Bill—indeed, one of the central reasons why the Government are embarking on breaking international law—is to overrule the provisions on state aid rules that apply in Northern Ireland. Let us not forget that the Government agreed to those provisions in their so-called oven-ready deal.

What is even more concerning is that, while the UK was an EU member, successive Conservative Governments had an almost allergic attitude to state aid. In 2017, France spent almost twice as much as the UK on state aid, and Germany spent a staggering four times as much, so why the sudden focus on state aid? The Conservatives have never been very interested in it, to the detriment of UK businesses, innovation and enterprise. The Government know that, if they have genuine and sincere problems with state aid, that is exactly what the Joint Committee exists for. Once again, we see the Government using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Frankly, the buck should stop with the Prime Minister. He knows the damage that this Bill would do to the Union, to the UK’s international reputation and to the rule of law. This Bill sets up confrontation with the EU. Some 40% of our international trade is with EU countries, and it sets up a stand-off with the courts. It is an attack on the rule of law, and it undermines the UK’s commitment to the rules-based international order.

[Patricia Gibson]

I am delighted to participate in the debate, and I am going to do something unusual: I am going to talk about clauses 46 and 47, which most Government Members have refused to do. I will begin by saying that I support amendment 33 from the Scottish National party.

We are witnessing in this Bill a smash and grab on Scotland’s powers. Far from the much-touted “powerhouse Parliament”, we have clause 48, a clause that sees the UK Government reserving the devolved policy of state aid, and clause 47, which sees powers given to the UK Ministers in devolved areas. [Interruption.] I will say that again, because the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) obviously does not understand it—I know that because I saw him questioning people earlier. Clause 46 sees powers given to UK Ministers in devolved areas—I will speak slowly so he understands—such as infrastructure, economic development, public spending, culture, sport, education and training. The list goes on.