Covid-19: NAO Report on Government Procurement

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Wednesday 9th December 2020 Westminster Hall

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing the debate. PPE Medpro was incorporated on 12 May and was awarded a contract for £122 million for single-use disposable medical robes, which it was going to import. The contract was not advertised, but the company had a link to a Conservative peer. By contrast, my constituents who own Florence Roby spent months trying to get a contract for multi-use medical robes, which can be used up to 100 times. They were given the run-around and, after months, they had to give up and lay off staff. Is that contrast not a perfect example of everything that the National Audit Office highlights as being wrong with procurement in this crisis? This is a missed opportunity to have environmentally sustainable production and value for money, with reusable, not single-use, equipment.

[Ms Angela Eagle (in the Chair)]

Order. Wind up the question, please.

[Bill Esterson]

This is a missed opportunity to support the local economy and workers. Instead, we have imports, not local jobs, and opportunism, with the use of fast-track access to the Government party.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Angela Eagle (in the Chair)]

Order. I am not going to allow interventions that long in future. There are many people on the call list, and it is not fair to them.

[Dan Carden]

Thank you, Ms Eagle. I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Story after story has come forward in a similar vein.

Public procurement regulations are designed to safeguard public confidence in the spending of public money. On 18 March 2020, the Cabinet Office implemented emergency procedures for procurement to allow for extreme urgency, including directly awarding contracts to suppliers without competition. That guidance referred to the need to keep proper records of decisions and actions on individual contracts; to have transparency and publication requirements; and to achieve value for money—basic requirements that the report and other information in the public domain now show the Government failed to meet.

The NAO highlights that, remarkably, the Cabinet Office guidance failed to give direction on managing the risks that should be considered as a result of using direct awards. The usual Cabinet Office spending controls on contracts over £10 million were not applied to the procurement of personal protective equipment. A clearance board was later set up, with an eight-stage process to approve PPE contracts over £5 million, but we know that £1.5 billion was awarded in contracts before proper processes were in place and before any financial and company due diligence process was standardised.

By 31 July 2020, over 8,600 contracts, worth £18 billion, had been awarded, of which £10.5 billion-worth were awarded directly without competition. Under the cover of the pandemic, billions of pounds of public money was handed to private companies, including Tory-linked firms, without competition, transparency or accountability.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Penrose]

On a point of order, Ms Eagle. It is important to note that ever since the role of anti-corruption champion was invented, it has, under Labour Governments as well as Conservative, always been held by an MP—sometimes a Minister—who is a member of the governing party of the day.

[Ms Angela Eagle (in the Chair)]

That was not a point of order.

[Dan Carden]

It remains completely inappropriate.

In the words of The Sunday Times authors,

“As the government mounted a war effort to combat Covid-19, it has instead resembled more of a ‘chumocracy’. This is a world in which ministers have turned to friends with links to the Conservatives.”

While the British public continue to make huge personal sacrifices, a privileged group of business people with close connections to the Government has turned huge profits from the pandemic. What is perhaps most remarkable is that Ministers actually created a VIP high-priority lane for companies bidding for contracts, which were put forward by Government officials, Ministers’ offices, MPs and Members of the House of Lords. It is not just a perception of cronyism; we now know that the system was rigged, with privileged access granted to companies with connections to top politicians. These favoured companies were 10 times more likely to be successful than those without political connections. This flies in face of one of the key principles of procurement: that suppliers should be on a level playing field. If this happened in any other country, we would call it corruption.

There can be no justification for the Government withholding the names of fast-tracked companies allowed to jump the queue, often at the expense of more proven competitors. Transparency is a fundamental principle; the public have the right to know how their money has been spent. The NAO’s investigation focused on 20 contracts, and its revelations could just be the tip of the iceberg. There must be a full independent investigation into Government contracts granted during covid-19.

More than 100,000 people have now signed a parliamentary petition calling for a public inquiry. The Government must, as a bare minimum, implement the NAO recommendations. They must end the VIP lane, if they have not already done so, and return to undertaking competitive procurement. They must publish the full details of the companies that pass through the VIP lane, and the sources of their referral. In a number of other countries, including Ukraine and Colombia, details about emergency covid contracts must be published within 24 hours. If they can do it, why can’t we?

The Government must embed open contracting systems into their procurement processes. Their forthcoming Green Paper is an opportunity to go even further, to rewrite the rules of procurement to prevent such flagrant conflicts of interest in the future. I will return to the Green Paper in a moment, but let me briefly talk about the advisory panel that is informing the Green Paper.

The Government’s procurement transformation advisory panel contains some voices that are welcome in shaping Government procurement policy—the University of Sussex’s Centre for the Study of Corruption, for instance, is one of them. However, there are serious concerns about other appointments to the panel, most notably Amazon. Amazon has already been awarded 82 central Government contracts, worth £225 million, in the past five years, and has a deal enabling local councils to buy supplies in one marketplace. The manner in which Amazon is embedding itself into national and regional public procurement is, in the words of Paul Monaghan of the Fair Tax Mark, “truly frightening”.

How can it be right that Amazon should be given such a position of influence over Government procurement policy, while raking in hundreds of millions in Government contracts itself? Considering Amazon’s record on meeting its tax obligations, why should a company that refuses to pay its fair share into the public purse be in a position to profit so handsomely from it? Can the Minister tell me by what process members of the procurement transformation advisory panel were appointed? What steps, if any, were taken to identify and address potential conflicts of interest, and will the minutes of the meeting be published?



In the same week the NAO report was published, the UN published its evaluation of the UK’s implementation of the UN convention against corruption, in which it calls on the UK to take a tougher approach to handling conflicts of interest—especially those at the top of Government. When we look at how other Governments across the world have responded, not only to covid but to procurement specifically, there is a lot for the UK to be embarrassed about. In Sweden, Slovakia, Estonia and Latvia, the number of contracts awarded using open competition went up during the pandemic.

The upcoming Green Paper is an opportunity to put in place measures that would begin to restore some trust in the system. The Government must now consider implementing end-to-end digital transparency for all Government contracts from planning through to tender, award, spending and implementation. The Government must establish an effective conflict of interest regime, including a publicly accessible database of conflict of interest declarations. To support that, they should extend the remit of the independent adviser on Ministers’ interests to give them independent statutory status, including the power to investigate conflicts of interest and to take action.

The Government should look to introduce conditions requiring companies bidding for contracts to meet the highest standards to ensure that they are providing real social value. Companies should receive public contracts only if they meet their tax obligations and environmental standards, and if they recognise trade unions.

This debate goes to the heart of a much wider malaise. For decades now, people have been steadily shut out of decisions affecting their lives. Wealth and power have become more highly concentrated in the hands of a few. Wealth translates to influence, and influence back to wealth. The revolving door between big business, media, finance and politics never stops spinning. The only way to counter that is by deepening democracy and accountability to the public at every level. The Government’s own anti-corruption strategy warns:

“Corruption threatens our national security and prosperity, both at home and overseas. Unchecked, it can erode public confidence in the domestic and international institutions that we all depend upon.”

The obscene profiteering and cronyism that has been the hallmark of the UK’s response to covid-19 has further eroded what little trust people have left in our political system. The need to challenge conflicts of interest, extend democracy and fight for a robust system of checks and balances to hold power to account has never been more pressing.

[Ms Angela Eagle (in the Chair)]

I shall begin by imposing a three-minute time limit on speeches, but I think it will have to go down to two before the end of the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)]

To listen to the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley), one would think everything was rosy in the garden—of course, it is not. The Government have adopted processes that abandon the decades-old traditions of checking value for money when spending in the private sector. How else can we explain that, for example, £95 billion of outsourcing resulted in a 20% increase in contracts, and the £14.3 billion of additional expenditure on contracts that had been let? How else can we explain that many contracts were let without tendering processes of any kind? Some £10 billion of taxpayers’ money was spent without any form of tendering at all. To rely on the process that the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire has just described simply does not convince. One billion pounds have gone to Tory chums—these are staggering amounts of money.

I know it is not the subject of the audit report, but given the facts that emerged when Carillion went bust—that the Government had abandoned any attempt whatever to monitor the delivery of the contract—it is extraordinary that no further steps have been taken to protect the public purse. This is taxpayer money being wasted on a colossal scale, and in an unjustifiable way. When we consider that outsourcing is costing each household in this country £3,500, the scale is extraordinary.

There is an old expression, is there not, about never wasting a crisis? The Tories have not wasted this one. They have handed over billions of pounds to their Tory chums in the private sector in a wasteful manner, with no real effort to monitor contracts or secure value for money. When people discover that it is costing each household £3,500, I think the general response will be that this is a massive rip-off—some would go further and suggest that our British standards of probity, which lasted for more than a century, have been abandoned and have become so corrupted as to no longer be acceptable. Whatever one’s view on that, it is hard to disagree that the Government are spending taxpayers’ money like confetti at a wedding—in a most wasteful and reckless manner.

[Ms Angela Eagle (in the Chair)]

I am reducing the speaking limit to two and a half minutes in order to get everybody in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Hayes]

I agree with my hon. Friend’s point. I repeat: with procurement happening so quickly, under emergency measures, the Government should have been creating more transparency, opening up to greater scrutiny, so that the public could have confidence in the pandemic response. Instead, the opposite appears to be the case. Again and again, the Government shrugged their shoulders at revelations of crony contracts and failed to make any commitment even to publish a full list of the companies awarded contracts under the VIP route.

I ask the Minister to answer the following questions in responding to this debate. When will the Government publish a full list of all the companies awarded contracts under the VIP route? Will she explain why the Government again and again failed to meet the requirement to publish contract awards within a timely manner during the pandemic? That was an obligation that was not relaxed by the emergency legislation. Will she explain why trusted British firms were bypassed in favour of companies with no track record of delivery? Will she commit to a full investigation of the extent of cronyism in procurement throughout the pandemic? Most importantly, will she set out what the Government now intend to do to rebuild the trust and confidence of the British public and British businesses in their broken approach to procurement?

[Ms Angela Eagle (in the Chair)]

Minister, please leave a couple of minutes at the end for the response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Carden]

Thank you, Ms Eagle, for chairing the proceedings, and I also thank colleagues across the House for their contributions. I do not think the issue will disappear. Too many millions of people have faced financial hardship and difficult circumstances over this past year, so there is anger out there among the public over what is seen as a chumocracy, cronyism or whatever we want to call it. We know that huge sums have been handed to close contacts of the Conservative party. Although I welcome the Minister’s reply and how she engaged with all the issues, she was not able to explain away the privileged access given to friends and chums of the Conservative party. Following this debate, we need a full public inquiry into covid contracts.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the NAO report on Investigation into government procurement during the covid-19 pandemic.

[Ms Angela Eagle (in the Chair)]

Will Members please leave promptly by the exit door on the left while observing social distancing?

Public Health

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Tuesday 1st December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

In this pandemic, the Government have always been behind the curve—too slow to take the necessary decisions, too slow into lockdowns and not making the right decisions in a timely way—which has led to this terrible double whammy of one of the highest per capita death rates in the world and the largest recession in Europe. There seems to be no forward-looking strategy to get ahead of the virus and the kind of issues that we know from the modelling are going to come up. Inadequate support has been provided to those who need to be supported. Instead, we have heard vainglorious announcements about moonshots and world-beating systems, and then a failure to deliver on that kind of boosterist language; there has been hyperbole and not enough delivery.

There has been a lack of trust in the rules, not least because they keep being changed; there are eight different iterations of the furlough scheme. There is no certainty with Government support, because they cannot stop fiddling and changing it, sometimes within weeks of announcing it. That has caused uncertainty and cynicism, and it is hard not to come to the conclusion that in the Prime Minister we have the wrong person, in the wrong place, at the wrong time. This Government need to lead by example, so Dominic Cummings should have been sacked immediately for ignoring the lockdown rules, and that would avoided an awful lot of cynicism that came in the aftermath of that terrible decision.

The Government need to reward good behaviour, not punish bad, so they need to enable isolation by paying proper sick pay and supporting those who have to isolate. The £500 payments are not adequate, and they are running out in some areas of the country, with no guarantee that they will be increased. They are barely reaching one in eight of those who have to isolate. This gives people who cannot afford to self-isolate an incentive not to download the app, not to take the tests and to hope it will be okay. The Government need to work with the grain of public requirements, necessities and behaviour, not against it.

The Government need to tell the truth, not to keep the truth from us in this assessment we have had, which is full of weasel words. The Government also need to show moral leadership: stop setting up VIP lanes for Tory donors and their mates and spending £18 billion of public procurement on this. The Government need to help the 3 million excluded people, who do not want to hear that £200 billion has been spent on the economy when they have not seen any of it and are in desperate need. The Government need to be honest and up front, and then they will get support.

Covid-19 Update

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I must repeat what I said earlier on: there is a wide range of activities that many people would like to pursue, but the risk is that they will have chains of human contact whether they like it or not, and increase the risk of transmission. That is why we have set out the measures that we have.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Did the Chancellor veto an earlier, shorter circuit breaker lockdown, or can the 40 days of dither and delay that are likely to cost thousands of extra lives lost and billions in damage to our economy all be laid at the door of the Prime Minister?

[The Prime Minister]

The answer to the hon. Lady’s first question is “absolutely not”, but as I have already explained, any Government will hesitate for an age before imposing lockdown measures that take such a toll on people’s mental health, their jobs and their livelihoods. If she looks at what we are doing, we are doing it earlier in the curve than some other European countries. I think it is the right thing at the right time, and I very much hope she will support this package of measures.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Angela Eagle Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion & Programme motion: House of Commons
Monday 14th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband]

Actually, yes we do, and I will tell the hon. Lady why. We respect the fact that the Conservative party, under this Prime Minister, won the election. He got his mandate to deliver his Brexit deal: the thing that he said was—I am sure she recalls this because it was probably on her leaflets—“oven ready”. It is not me who is coming along and saying it is half-baked; it is him. He is saying, “The deal that I signed and agreed is actually—what’s the word? Ambiguous. Problematic.” I will get to this later in my speech, but I wonder whether he actually read the deal in the first place.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is making an extremely good speech. Would he perhaps tell the House who on earth might have signed this terrible deal with so many ambiguities less than nine months ago?

[Edward Miliband]

My hon. Friend makes an important point; I do believe it was the Prime Minister who signed the deal.

In fairness to the Prime Minister, I want to deal with each of the arguments that the Government have made in the last few days for this action. It is quite hard to keep count of the different arguments—you know you are losing the argument when you keep making lots of different arguments—but I want to give the House the top five. First, let us deal with the argument about blockades, which made its first outing in The Telegraph on Saturday through the Prime Minister, and obviously it made a big appearance today.

I have to say, I did not like the ramping up of the rhetoric from the European Union on Thursday, following the Prime Minister’s publication of this Bill, but even by the standards of the Prime Minister, this is as ridiculous an argument as I have ever heard. Let me let me explain to him why—the point was very well made by the former Attorney General this morning. This is what article 16 of the protocol says:

“If the application of this Protocol leads to serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist, or to diversion of trade, the Union or the United Kingdom may unilaterally take appropriate safeguard measures.”

In other words, let us just say that this threat somehow materialised—and by the way, I believe that Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs officials would have to implement it, making it even more absurd that it would happen. If the threat materialised, it is not overturning the protocol that is the right thing to do; it is upholding the protocol, as article 16 says. But do not take my word for it, Madam Deputy Speaker; take the word of the former Attorney General—who definitely read the protocol—who wrote this morning:

“There are clear and lawful responses available to Her Majesty’s government”.

As if that was not enough, there is also an irony here—the Prime Minister tried to slip this in; I do not know whether the House noticed—which is that this Bill does precisely nothing to address the issue of the transport of food from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. It is about two issues where the Government are going to override international law: exit declarations, Northern Ireland to GB, and the definition of state aid relating to Northern Ireland. If the Prime Minister wants to tell us that there is another part of the Bill that I have not noticed that will deal with this supposed threat of blockade, I will very happily give way to him. I am sure he has read it; I am sure he knows it in detail, because he is a details man. Come on, tell us: what clause protects against the threat, which he says he is worried about, to GB-to-Northern Ireland exports? I give way to him. [Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

Over the past few years, we have all witnessed this Tory Government plunging this Parliament and our broader politics into ever deeper chaos and disgrace. In that time, Scotland has been dragged out of the European Union against our will. It is almost a year to the day on which this Parliament was illegally prorogued, and in recent months a raft of senior civil servants has been forced out the door. That instability is this UK Parliament’s new normal; it is now part and parcel of a broken Westminster system.

Here we are again: having dragged us deeper and deeper into their dangerous agenda for the past four years, today this right-wing Brexit cabal has reached rock bottom. The United Kingdom Internal Market Bill is the greatest threat to devolution that Scotland has faced since our Parliament was reconvened with the overwhelming support of the Scottish people in 1999. We are discussing the principles of a Bill that this Tory Government casually and brazenly admit violates international and domestic law—a Bill that cynically uses the precious peace at the heart of the Good Friday agreement as nothing more than a Brexit bargaining chip.

The Bill runs to 50 pages, but people across these islands have a right to know exactly what it proposes to do. It does two fundamentally dangerous and undemocratic things: it breaks international law and it breaks devolution. Those two facts explain why there has been such a widespread chorus of opposition to the Bill. That opposition comes from every profession, sector and corner of these islands, and it is why this legislation should and must be resisted by anyone who claims to respect the rule of law and anyone who claims to respect the current devolution settlement.

As we know, there is opposition on the Conservative Benches. In the other place, the former Tory leader, Lord Howard, told the Government that the legislation would result in the UK is showing itself as having “scant regard” for its treaty obligations. When the Government are getting verbally slaughtered by a Brexiteer who has—how shall I say it?—“something of the night” about him, it is as clear as day that the Tories have gone way beyond the pale.

The Law Society of Scotland has commented on the Bill, stating:

“The bill should, as a matter of principle, comply with public international law and the rule of international law, pacta sunt servanda…should be honoured. Adherence to the rule of law underpins our democracy and our society. We believe that to knowingly break with the UK’s reputation for following public international law could have far-reaching economic, legal and political consequences and should not be taken lightly.”

I repeat: to knowingly break international law. I ask each Member to think on that tonight.

Every Member has a choice. We know that the Bill breaks international law—so many learned individuals, including the previous Attorney General, have told us so. Tonight, this House can tell the Government that it is not on and that this House is not going to be complicit in a breach of international law. I venture that that is the responsibility that each Member has. Every Member—every Member, Madam Deputy Speaker—should examine their conscience. This is about a Bill that breaches the terms of a treaty, the ink of which is barely dry and on the delivery of which the governing party fought an election.

[Ms Angela Eagle]

The right hon. Gentleman is making points that go to the heart of the Bill, and I share his worries about them. Does he share my worries that the Bill also attempts to curtail judicial review, or prevent it entirely, once that law has been broken?

[Ian Blackford]

The hon. Lady is correct about that, because we know that the Government have got into trouble with the judiciary over their actions in the past, and I will come on to talk about that.

The right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), who spoke for the Opposition, was correct when he said that the Prime Minister cannot pretend that he did not know the terms of the treaty or its obligations when he signed it—that simply beggars belief. This is a test for the House this evening; do not wait for the Committee stage, as legally, morally and ethically the right thing to do is to vote down this Bill tonight. This House must be accountable. Do not follow the Prime Minister in acquiescing in breaking the law—if you vote to give the Bill its Second Reading tonight, that is exactly what you are all doing. So this is a test, and I understand the challenge the Conservative Members face. Do not support the Prime Minister by breaking the law this evening—it is as simple as that.

Of course, the Prime Minister has form: a year ago he went to the Queen to prorogue Parliament, an illegal act that the courts forced him to reverse. Here he is again—although in this case he is not, because he has run off—woefully breaking international law this time, seeking to ask the Queen to enact legislation that breaks international law. We have the power individually and collectively to stop the Prime Minister in this act of madness this evening. This is a matter of principle; it is about this House saying that we should not breach our legal obligations—I implore the House to say exactly that.

We were expecting the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to have drawn the short straw in having to come here to argue for this dreadful piece of legislation, but he was stood down. We all know who the parcel of rogues are behind this legislation; this Bill has the fingerprints of the Prime Minister, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and, of course, Dominic Cummings. We have just heard the bluff and bluster of the Prime Minister in seeking to defend the indefensible. He can try all he likes to dress this up as a business Bill, but no amount of dressing up will hide the fact that this is a naked power grab. The Tories are fooling no one, least of all businesses in Scotland. If this UK Government were actually serious about delivering an ounce of business confidence, they would not be threatening to blow apart any hope of a future trade deal with the European Union.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

I never thought I would ever see a piece of legislation this objectionable put before the House. It is a gigantic act of self-harm masquerading as a negotiating strategy in the EU-UK trade talks, as the flounder and the end of the transition period looms. It unilaterally repudiates the devyolution settlements and centralises power to the UK Government.

As currently drafted, this Bill will give Ministers the powers to disapply or unilaterally reinterpret parts of the Northern Ireland protocol and ignore their legal obligations in both domestic and international law to enact the protocol as it was negotiated. It asserts that these powers will be legally effective even though they break international law, thereby unilaterally repudiating the foundations of the withdrawal agreement, which was only enacted by the House earlier this year. The Bill orders the domestic courts to prioritise this new law over any existing international law we have signed up to and it attempts to preclude any prospect of judicial review.

It has already been admitted on the Floor of the House by a Cabinet Minister that the Bill breaks international law in a very “specific and limited way”. The reality is that this is a shocking repudiation of everything the UK holds dear. It threatens to destroy our hard-won reputation as an upholder of international law and as a country that can be trusted to keep its word. Once lost, that reputation will not be easy to regain. This is not only morally wrong—it is self-defeating and undermines the prospect of reaching a deal at all. It is a sign of just how dangerous the Government’s actions now are that all five living ex-Prime Ministers, both Labour and Conservative, have made public their opposition to this reckless course of action, as have the Brexiteer ex-leaders of the Conservative party, Lords Hague and Howard.

This morning, the Prime Minister’s first Lord Chancellor called the Bill “unconscionable” and revealed that he will not vote for it. Many legal experts argue that both the current Lord Chancellor and the Attorney General are in breach of their oaths of office and should resign. Last week, the head of the Government legal service did resign over the Bill because it breaks international law. Given that we have an unwritten constitution which relies on ministerial restraint and responsibility, the Bill is even more dangerous than it first appears. It unilaterally tears up treaty obligations made just months ago and makes it less likely that any of our future undertakings will be believed or trusted, just as we must renegotiate all our existing trading agreements with the rest of the world.

What are we to make of a Prime Minister who presides over this moral vacuum and this reckless gamble with our international reputation; the man who resigned over his predecessor’s deal, which had no Irish border, pronouncing it a betrayal and using it as his path to power in the Conservative party; the man who, nine short months ago, negotiated and signed the withdrawal agreement, declaring it “fantastic”, and expelled from the Conservative party and Parliament all his own MPs who did not back it; the man who went to the country with this “oven-ready” Brexit deal and won a huge majority; the man who now believes it was rushed and flawed, and must be unilaterally written by him and him alone, the world king acting like a two-year-old having a tantrum because he did not get all he wanted; a Prime Minister who is completely careless of the consequences of his own actions; and the leader of a Government who think they can do what they want, purge who they want and act how they want, a Government who think there is one law for them and another for everyone else, repudiating treaties they have just signed and ignoring the lockdown rules they impose on everyone else?

This will not end well. The Government must step back from the brink, withdraw the lawbreaking clauses in the Bill, and think again.

Civil Service Appointments

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend, who was a distinguished Foreign Office and International Development Minister, raises an important point. This is an area outside my immediate responsibility, but I will report back to the House on it.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Secretary of State for making the most outrageous points and keeping a straight face. He is very good at doing that. Will he answer the question asked right at the beginning of this debate by the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May)? Precisely what are the new National Security Adviser’s qualifications in national security, which, after all, all of us care about because it is about the safety and security of each and every person in this country? What are his specific qualifications and expertise, and why on earth, given his other job, was he considered even for a second for this role?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her compliment.

[Ms Angela Eagle]

indicated dissent.

[Michael Gove]

I know it was salty, but nevertheless there was an air of sweetness about it as well.

The broader point, though, is that, as I mentioned earlier, David Frost is involved in one of the most complex diplomatic negotiations that has ever been conducted, and a diplomatic negotiation that relates specifically to defence and security co-operation as well as to tariffs and trade. He has been a civil servant—a diplomat—for decades. It is the case that Mark Lyall Grant, who was National Security Adviser, and Kim Darroch, who was National Security Adviser, were not people who were steeped in the world of intelligence and security; they were gifted diplomats and gifted public servants, and of course they were supported, as David will be, by a superb team in the National Security Secretariat.

UK-EU Negotiations

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I am very conscious of the mistakes made during our accession and the damage that the common fisheries policy has done, not just to our coastal communities, but to the husbanding of a very valuable marine resource. We have certainly made it clear to the EU that we will be an independent coastal state and we will have annual negotiations.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman has come here throwing out phrases such as “tiger in the tank” and is trying to gear up on the optimism, but last week the EU’s chief negotiator said that “progress remains limited”. What makes the right hon. Gentleman think that progress, which has been so limited in the past, will all miraculously resolve itself by the end of July?

[Michael Gove]

It is the case that progress has been limited, but the impetus that was lent to the talks not just by the Prime Minister but by the three European Presidents yesterday was a clear signal of intent, and we will work with good will with our European partners in order to conclude an agreement as quickly as possible.

Budget Resolutions

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the Father of the House. I agree with his view that we are on the cusp of a very major change in the tax base, and it is important that we debate what the nature of that change should be.

We are living in very uncertain times. We are on our third Conservative Prime Minister in four years, and this Budget was presented by the fourth Conservative Chancellor in as many years—a Chancellor who has been in place for barely a month and who had to agree to play second fiddle to Dominic Cummings as the price of his sudden elevation.

No Budget was delivered last year, and the Office for Budget Responsibility last published an official forecast nearly a year ago. To make up for that, we are now told to expect that 2020 will be a year of two Budgets and a spending review, so what the Chancellor announced today may be only the first in a trilogy of fiscal events this year.

This Government of Brexit obsessives have deliberately chosen to inflict a high level of uncertainty and disruption on our future trade arrangements. There is still the prospect of an effective no-deal cliff edge at the end of 2020 should the talks with the EU go badly. The Bank of England’s own assessment points to an 8.25% hit to GDP by 2024 in the event of a sudden, unmanaged WTO outcome to the talks, yet the Chancellor barely, if at all, mentioned Brexit in his hour-long speech.

If that were not enough, the country is now facing an immediate and massive threat caused by the rapid advance of coronavirus across the globe. In his evidence to the Treasury Committee last week, the outgoing Governor of the Bank of England said that coronavirus is likely to have a large but temporary effect on the global economy. Today, announcing an emergency interest rate cut of half a percentage point and an offer to banks of four years of cheap funding to ensure they continue to lend, the Bank of England noted a “marked deterioration” in the outcome of already weak economic growth in the coming months. With the persistence of historically low interest rates since 2008, the efficacy of monetary policy is now questionable. That makes the Chancellor’s fiscal adjustment and supply-side response in today’s Budget crucial in mitigating the coronavirus crisis.

Clearly, fiscal policy needed to be looser, temporarily at least, to protect otherwise viable businesses from being destroyed by the short-term abnormal supply and demand shock, so I welcome the Chancellor’s fiscal stimulus package, which he costs at £30 billion. We all hope he has done enough, and we all trust that he will return with more if the situation demands.

[Jonathan Edwards]

I echo the hon. Lady’s comments. The announcements on support for small businesses are welcome, but I have been contacted by many small businesses in my constituency that are worried about extra charges due to the new Financial Conduct Authority regime for overdrafts. The Treasury needs to look at this before the regime comes into force in May.

[Ms Eagle]

I certainly hope the banks will recognise the Government’s generosity to them on lending and buffers and will pass that on to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, as well as mine.

Climate change and the commitment to reach net zero carbon by 2050 also pose a major challenge, and the effect of being unprepared has been tragically evident in the flooding experienced this winter. This Budget offered an opportunity to address the need to introduce transformative policies to get us on the path to net zero before it is too late, but I do not see an awful lot of detail. I welcome the increase in expenditure on flood defences, which would have been even better had it not been preceded by major cuts in expenditure on flood defences. I look forward to the Treasury’s net zero review, which needs to outline the path forward to net zero, but I am puzzled about agriculture being excluded from the announcement on red diesel. Agriculture is the major sector that uses red diesel, so that needs more detailed scrutiny.

The UK economy remains weak in the face of these formidable challenges. The Office for National Statistics has just revealed that the UK economy did not grow at all in the last quarter of 2019, and annual growth of 1.4% last year is one of the weakest on record. The OBR’s forecast for this year was put together before the larger effects of coronavirus were taken into account. Its forecast for expenditure, excluding those effects, is an anaemic 1.1%.

The OECD recently said it expects coronavirus to cut global growth in half. If that is true, it puts us down to about 0.6% for the year, which is one of the worst performances we could expect to see. Monday showed that, even now, the markets are pricing in a recession, so there are vulnerabilities in growth.

There are also vulnerabilities in the UK labour market, in which 3.7 million people are in insecure jobs and have not seen real wages rise in 12 years. Inequality is rising, and one in five workers are earning less than the real living wage. Child poverty is soaring and is set to reach 5 million by 2024 due to the ongoing cuts to benefits and family support, of which there was no mention whatsoever in the entirety of the Chancellor’s speech.

Nearly 1 million workers are on zero-hours contracts, and 2 million are not earning enough to qualify for statutory sick pay. Those in the gig economy and the self-employed are similarly vulnerable to a loss of income so, as far as they go, I welcome the Chancellor’s announcements on statutory sick pay and support for those who self-isolate, but I am extremely sceptical about his announcement that those who work on zero-hours contracts will apparently be expected to apply for employment and support allowance in order to be compensated for doing the right thing. That is likely to be highly inadequate, and we need to return to that issue. I suspect the answer will be statutory sick pay for all from day one.

The lack of rights at work is a barrier in the fight against coronavirus, and it prevents a desperately needed transformation in productivity and investment in skills. The fight against in-work poverty barely features in this Government’s thinking. Recent analysis by the Resolution Foundation has shown that the poorest fifth of the population have experienced a 7% fall in their disposable household income in the past two years, as a direct result of choices this Government have made, which were not reversed by the Chancellor. A decade of swingeing cuts has decimated public services. Public sector workers have had to do more with less, and be rewarded by suffering a real-terms fall in pay and conditions. The NHS has 17,000 fewer beds. There are 43,000 nursing vacancies and 10,000 doctor vacancies in the NHS that we are expecting to deal with the coronavirus crisis. There is a £6.3 billion shortfall in the resources needed for social care. We can welcome the first new investment in a decade, but we have to be clear that it barely begins to restore what has been taken away.

We also have to remember that infrastructure spending, although welcome, does not deal with the current expenditure squeeze, which is ongoing. My local authority, Wirral Council, has £635 less per household to spend than it did in 2010. Merseyside police has seen £136 million of cuts since 2010, so the £28 million extra pledged in the spending review is welcome, but £5 million of it has to come from council tax increases and it will not restore what has been lost. We see the same in area after area: the Government trying to take credit, as though they were a new Government entirely, and distancing themselves from the Governments of the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and her predecessor, who did all this cutting in the first place.

They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Today’s overspun announcements of a £600 billion investment programme are welcomed in the self-same Tory tabloids that denounced Labour’s manifesto plans to invest £500 billion as “ruinous Marxist nonsense.” Apparently, £100 billion extra is acceptable if it is the Tories doing it. Let’s face it: we have heard it all before. Let us wait to see what they deliver before we pat them on the back. We must never forget that the Government would not have to allocate £2.5 billion to fix 50 million potholes had they not neglected our roads system with their ruinous austerity policies in the first place.

The Conservative manifesto promised no increases to income tax, which was not mentioned today, national insurance or VAT, and the Chancellor’s fiscal rules, which he is apparently reviewing, give him only minimum headroom for any non-investment spending. His choice, therefore, is to find tax increases elsewhere or increase borrowing, which proves that the extreme cuts that have been inflicted on our society were not necessary in the first place and that the misery they have unleashed has been needlessly cruel. Starting to put right some of the damage they have done is welcome, but we will not forget the suffering and hardship they have caused, especially to the poorest in society. We will not forget the soaring levels of child poverty the Government have chosen to inflict, and the waste of potential and life opportunities that this indifference implies. We will not forget the attacks on the most vulnerable and the Government’s neglect of social care. We will continue to hold them to account for it at this and future Budgets.

Ministerial Code

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I am very, very grateful to my hon. Friend, who has been a superb Minister. Of course, she is absolutely right. The ethos of public service that she characterises is at the heart of our effective constitution.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

In all my many years in this House, eight of them as a Minister in the Government, I do not think I have ever seen such a resignation announcement from a permanent secretary: actively calling his Secretary of State a liar, accusing her of bullying in the most gross terms, and feeling he had no option but to do so publicly. Clearly, something here has gone extremely wrong and it surely threatens the independence of the civil service if this rot is allowed to continue. What is the Minister, who has responsibility for the civil service, going to do to protect the integrity of the civil service from these kinds of ad hominem political attacks?

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Lady was herself a distinguished Minister and I know how high was the regard in which she was held by her civil servants. I completely agree with her that it is vital that all of us seek to uphold the independence of the civil service. It is absolutely vital that the civil service is able to offer candid advice to Ministers. I know myself, having worked with the Home Secretary and others, that we have benefited from that candid advice in seeking to implement Government policy. However, I think it is also important to acknowledge that Sir Philip, a distinguished public servant, has indicated that he may initiate legal proceedings against the Government, so it would be inappropriate for me to say more about the particular statements he made on Saturday.

Early Parliamentary General Election

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Well, sorry seems to be the hardest word, doesn’t it?

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have a Prime Minister who has a tortuous and difficult relationship with veracity? My right hon. Friend is therefore absolutely right not to believe a single word that comes out of that man’s mouth?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. She is right. That is why many of us are very cautious about believing anything that the Prime Minister says. We want this tied down before we agree to anything.

A 12 December election would be less than a fortnight before Christmas and nine days before the shortest day of the year. The House must consider that it will be dark before 4 pm in parts of the country, that many students will have just finished their term and gone home for Christmas—[Interruption.] Well, actually, people having the right to vote is what an election is all about, and people risk being disenfranchised.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Angela Eagle Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 22nd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The right hon. Lady makes her own point in her own way. It requires no comment from me, but I thank her for saying what she said.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I will come to the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), but first I will call the Father of the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I would not be inclined to accept that without notice. What I would say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman is that it would be potentially orderly, but I have to, if he will forgive me for saying so, read the runes. I have no sense, notwithstanding the argument he has advanced, that that is the wish of the Government. The fact that the Prime Minister has just exited the Chamber seems to me rather to reinforce that view. I make no criticism at all. I am simply saying that he has left the Chamber. I do not think he has any appetite for the preference of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, which I hope he can bear stoically and with fortitude. If the Leader of the House wanted to do that, he would have said so and he has not, so he does not.

[Ms Angela Eagle]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition offered the Conservative party a proper discussion on a different programme motion, which would have given us more time for the release of impact assessments and so on, and more time to discuss a very complex and important Bill. That has not been addressed. It is correct that we cannot proceed tonight, but if an agreement was reached between Front Benchers we could surely re-establish a timetable and scrutinise the Bill properly—if we did not have a Prime Minister who was behaving like a two year old and playing silly games?

[Mr Speaker]

I note what the hon. Lady says. The position is as I have explained. As colleagues will understand, senior figures in this place anticipate different scenarios and it is not uncommon for them to communicate those to the Chair. The Leader of the House did me the courtesy of informing me in advance of what the Government’s attitude would be in the event of a particular result. He has not departed from that view, so I am telling the House what the Government’s current intention is, about which colleagues will hear more in the business statement. That is very much a matter for the Government, and I am not trying to choke off what the hon. Lady wants; I am simply telling her that we are where we are, as things stand.

Colleagues, the orderly thing to do at this point is simply to proceed with what would be the choreography—I think I have a sense of how it is going to proceed—with, in the first instance, the money resolution, to be moved formally.