Government Procurement

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)]

On 1 October, it became mandatory for Government contracting authorities to include social issues like jobs and skills in their procurement processes. That in itself is a good thing, but the social value model they have prepared is flawed.

I welcome the consultation on further reforms to public procurement issued by the Cabinet Office in June. In his related press release, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made an explicit connection between the consultation and the Government’s proposals for obtaining social value benefits that are specific to the needs of a community. That aligns well with section 12 of the Procurement Act 2023 and the national procurement policy statement, which connects procurement with the Government’s core missions—for example,

“encouraging suppliers to recruit from groups that struggle to access employment opportunities”

as part of the “Take back our streets” mission;

“removing barriers to entry for young people and under-represented groups”

as part of the “Break down barriers to opportunity” mission;

“encouraging suppliers to recruit from economically inactive cohorts”

as part of the health mission; and

“opportunities for small businesses and social enterprises across the country”

as part of the “Kickstart economic growth” mission.

The Act sets clear objectives that, in effect, call for targeted recruitment and training, and local initiatives for small and medium-sized enterprises. The current position builds on an approach that evolved during the last Labour Government, when a range of local and regional initiatives were developed to target jobs and training opportunities at disadvantaged local communities. The term “community” could refer to people living in a specific geographic area or people who share disadvantages in the labour market, such as the long-term unemployed, young people, ex-offenders or care leavers.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s influential 2002 report, “Achieving community benefits through contracts: law, policy and practice” kick-started this whole approach. Later, the Labour Government published the first UK guidance, “Social issues in purchasing”, in 2006. That was followed by the Scottish Government’s “Community benefits in public procurement” document, which included policy, a methodology and model clauses, and remains widely used today.

Similar toolkits were adopted in other areas. Those included the targeted recruitment and training toolkit produced by the north-east improvement and efficiency partnership, the Can Do toolkit adopted by Welsh housing associations, and the west midlands procurement framework for jobs and skills.

As a proud Glaswegian, I am pleased to say that Scotland was an early adopter of targeted recruitment and training through procurement. A 2014 Glasgow University study that covered 24 contracts identified 1,000 people recruited from priority groups, of whom 38% were recruited as a result of the contract requirements; 200 apprentices recruited, of whom 73% were as a result of the contract conditions and all were still in employment; and 6,700 individuals who had received training, of whom 31% would not have done so without those contract conditions.

Glasgow housing association—the stock transfer recipient for roughly 100,000 social homes in the city council area—incorporated new entrant trainee requirements into its regeneration contracts at the outset. The overall achievements by 2014 were that 657 apprentices received an average of 73 weeks’ employment; 501 other new entrant trainees obtained an average of 22 weeks’ employment; a total of 60,000 person-weeks of employment for new entrant trainees were delivered—11.4% of all person-weeks utilised on the contracts; and 48% of new entrant trainee opportunities went to residents of the most disadvantaged areas of Glasgow.

That counts as a great success by any standard, as I am sure the Minister would agree. The outcomes demonstrate the benefits of getting senior management buy-in and staff resources from the outset. Targeted recruitment and training then become a normal part of commissioning, procurement and contract management. The approach set out in the Scottish Government guidance is underpinned by the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014, which remains good law in Scotland.

Let us come back to 2025. The Government’s “Procurement Policy Note 002: The Social Value Model” updates the 2013 social value model. Both iterations of the model originate from discussions between the Government and civil society organisations that resulted in the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012. For services contracts, the model encourages contracting authorities to procure some wider community benefit from the way their services contracts are delivered, often following good practice developed by innovative community-based service providers.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate on an important subject. He always provides much detail and information to help us. When it comes to procurement, cheapest is not always best. We should consider the very thing that he refers to—the social value—to ensure that we support local businesses and the community. In listening to what he says, I can see things that we in Northern Ireland could and should take advantage of. Will the Minister consider sharing these ideas with the Assembly in Northern Ireland? That would be advantageous not just for the Minister, but for us all.

[Barry Gardiner]

The hon. Gentleman is right, of course: cheapest is not always best. That is partly what the social value model is all about; it is designed to ensure that there is genuine social value, not simply the cheapest model.

The 2025 version of the social value model extends the scope to all contracts of central Government Departments, Executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies that fall within the scope of the Procurement Act 2023. It then encourages other contracting authorities to apply that approach. As a result, the social value model must now be used on most infrastructure and building contracts as well.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

When I had the privilege of leading a council in north Staffordshire, we tried to invent a model that allowed us to use the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 in exactly the way that my hon. Friend describes, so that when we were working with a registered social landlord on house building, for example, we could stipulate that a proportion of the bricks should come from the local area and that, in turn, apprentices would be working in those factories. I found that it was a matter of political will, but also that procurement officers sometimes struggled to understand how to quantify social value. Does my hon. Friend have a solution—one that the Minister could then cascade through Government—for working out the social value that we are all seeking to achieve?

[Barry Gardiner]

My hon. Friend gives an apposite example of some of the problems that can arise. I will not be so bold as to say I have the solution, but I will at least try to set out the problem with clarity, so that the Minister can ensure that his officers are able to provide a proper solution.

The model details eight types of social value, each with several areas of activity. Those cover fair work, training to address skills gaps, support for small business and community business, action for sustainability, crime reduction, overcoming barriers to work, and support for health and wellbeing. Contracting authorities can choose which of those are relevant to a particular procurement, but one element is mandatory: where a type of social value is selected, the standard reporting metric set out in the model must then be used for monitoring and reporting. Herein lies the problem. These monitoring requirements will influence how social value requirements are described in tenders and contracts. A contracting authority using a targeted recruitment and training toolkit would struggle to comply with the standard reporting metrics, as they would not relate to the tried and tested specifications that are used.

Many of the options in the social value model are related to the jobs, skills and SME opportunities that are contemplated in the national procurement policy statement. However, the model appears to be expecting procurement officials to create tender requirements whereby potential contractors will identify labour shortages and community needs and then propose ways to fill these gaps in the delivery of the contract. That may be possible with a services contract, but it is really not workable in a large, complex building and infrastructure development.

What are my concerns? First, apart from the way outputs are recorded, no specific elements of the social value model are mandatory for contracting authorities, so the provision of opportunities for people who are currently disadvantaged in the labour market is not mandatory. Contracting authorities can choose to focus on other activities contained in the social value model.

Secondly, the approach for every social value option is to require bidders for the contract to provide a comprehensive method statement at tender stage. That puts a heavy burden on potential contractors and is a huge barrier to small businesses bidding for contracts, which is perverse when breaking down barriers to SME engagement is one of the Procurement Act principles and a core mission of the Government.

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and a powerful argument. I have been dealing with an advanced manufacturer of metal and steel wires in my constituency that has been put off by the very thing he describes. That company stands ready to support the Government’s mission on clean and green energy—it wants to supply its steel wires to wind farms—but things like this deter it from getting involved in the first place. Does he agree that that needs to change?

[Barry Gardiner]

I am heartened. When some hon. Members approached me about this Adjournment debate, I said, “Look, it’s extremely boring—you won’t want to be in it,” but to have had three interventions that have been so apposite is really gratifying.

An alternative approach would be for most social value requirements to be included in the tender and contract documents as conditions relating to the delivery of the contract, rather than an item that is scored at the tender stage. Here, a method statement would be required shortly after the award of the contract, but only the winning contractor would have to prepare it. I hope that that goes some way to answering the questions from my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) and for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards).

My third concern is that the social value requirements may not be deliverable in large construction contracts. These have many layers of employer involved in delivering the contract and a significant turnover of employers and workforces at different stages of the contract. That is very different from the majority of service contracts. Key issues arising from this could include: ensuring that the subcontractors who employ most of the workforce deliver the social value requirements and provide the necessary monitoring information; getting highly mobile subcontractors to recruit and train locally based people; and ensuring continuity of employment and training for new entrants when subcontractors have limited engagement with the project and the training requires one or two years of on-site support. The current social value model demonstrates no awareness of those issues. If it feels impractical to achieve jobs and training on a particular project, procurement teams may opt for alternative social value outputs or opt out altogether. That could undermine the high priority given to providing opportunities for disadvantaged groups in the delivery of major projects.

Fourthly, the social value model uses terms such as “people under-represented in the labour market” and “disabled people”. Most applicants from these groups will not be identified on any register or easily categorised for recruitment and monitoring purposes. Indeed, they may not want to be labelled in this way, whatever the standard metrics require. In the toolkits to which I have referred, the focus of attention is on local people’s need for employment and for in-work training and support. Often months or years of employment is needed if new entrants are to become fully productive and embedded in their trade. Targeting comes by recruiting from training and support organisations that work with the target communities, especially local organisations.

Fifthly, the term “community” may have widely different meanings. Where there is a locality element in the model’s mandatory standard reporting metrics, “community” is defined as a UK region, but people living close to a major infrastructure development probably see their community as having much narrower boundaries. These more targeted benefits seem closer to the Government’s missions as described.

There is an additional question. The annex to procurement policy note 2, from February this year, states that employment opportunities arising from a contract must be advertised via the Department for Work and Pensions’ “Find a job” website, as well as local jobcentres. In the past, the website has offered the employer suitable candidates from anywhere in the UK, often within hours. That creates additional barriers for local new entrants, as they are competing with candidates from a very wide area. If the requirement is still applicable, this issue needs to be addressed by the Department for Work and Pensions.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this important subject to the House. Will he join me in welcoming the announcement that is hot off the press this evening from the Cabinet Office and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about how councils, police and fire authorities in England will now be able to reserve bidding for lower-value contracts to local and UK suppliers? This is all about opening up Government work to small businesses and enabling—exactly as he was saying—small businesses and local people to get high-skilled jobs from such Government procurement.

[Barry Gardiner]

Goodness me! It is very rare that I stand in this Chamber and get such immediate results from the Government. If this is a precedent, it is one that I wholeheartedly welcome. I am delighted to hear what my hon. Friend has just reported is the new Government policy. As I was saying about the Department for Work and Pensions, defining some job vacancies as “new entrant trainee opportunities” and naming local organisations as potential recruitment partners can increase opportunities for local people without damaging competition, and he has just mentioned a very good example. This is especially important in the context of the youth guarantee announced by the Government in September. Likewise, local business support organisations can help increase opportunities for local SMEs. Many combined authorities have a role to play in promoting good practice, on a shared basis, in their regions.

Finally, I am concerned that the current model provides a complex shopping list of what social value might be sought. It leaves procurement teams to unpack what each will involve and then turn that into a tender requirement. This is in a context in which many of the procurement staff involved, especially in works contracts, will be new to social value. I am struck by the critique of the social value approach that was made in the 2024 report published by the Centre for Local Economic Strategies, one of the leading organisations in the field. It says that

“an entire industry has grown up around the demand for methods, measures and consultancy time to help understand and measure social value. As a result, there are concerns that the original purpose of social value and the nuanced social dynamics involved in measuring its impact may be lost to bureaucracy and rigid frameworks.”

I think that sums it up perfectly.

In my view, the current social value model will bring a bonanza for consultants. Both contracting authorities and contractors will feel that they need to seek help to engage with these relatively new requirements. It would be far more efficient to simplify the requirements and equip procurement teams with the tools, systems and training to put these into contracts and monitor delivery.

I have three urgent questions for the Minister to consider. First, will the Government review the social value model to reduce the negative impact on small businesses seeking services contracts? Secondly, will the Government, perhaps working with the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority, commission urgent work to develop a targeted recruitment and training approach for large works contracts, using the experiences gained through the toolkits elsewhere in the UK? Thirdly, will the Government clarify whether all vacancies on works contracts have to be listed on the DWP “Find a job” website, and if so whether employers are able to exercise a local preference when delivering a social value obligation?

Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Ward]

I am so sorry; I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman. That was done to provide broader context of the Government’s position on China at the time, but it was an independent decision—taken freely, without interference from Ministers or advisers—of the DSNA to do so. [Interruption.] It is not my position to account for that. That was his decision, and that was the evidence submitted under consecutive Governments. I am afraid that is all I can add on that point.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)]

May I take the Minister back to the wording of the Act? It says that it is an offence to pass information that would be

“directly or indirectly useful to an enemy”.

It does not say that it is an offence to directly or indirectly pass to an enemy information that would be useful. The difference is that in the first, it is the usefulness of the information that constitutes the offence—it might be passed to any unauthorised person. In the second, it is the passing of it to an enemy that constitutes the offence. By using the second interpretation, it is therefore possible to argue that unless the person the information was passed to was an enemy, no offence was committed. That, it would seem to me, is how the two men had the case dropped. In fact, by passing it to a person not authorised to receive it, friend or foe, they had allowed it to circulate outside of the UK Government’s control, where it could then be obtained and used by an enemy—surely that is what the Act sought to criminalise. If the Minister agrees, is he satisfied that the wording of the Act is as it should be, or does he think that the prosecution was dropped erroneously?

[Chris Ward]

Commenting on whether or not it was dropped erroneously is not something that any Minister would do from this Dispatch Box.

Trade Negotiations

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alexander]

The hon. Gentleman has referred to our attempt to reset our trading relationship with Europe. The red lines that were set out in our manifesto are very clear, but within those red lines we are endeavouring to broaden and deepen an important trading relationship that represents about 46% of the UK’s trade. As for the hon. Gentleman’s broader observation that the agreement we have reached today is, as it were, a pretty bright-shining light in what is a somewhat dark sky for international trade, I agree with him. It is, hopefully, a sign of further deals to come and of a commitment to taking forward deals that are mutually beneficial, in this case for the Indians and also for the United Kingdom.

When it comes to the wider question of how the deal will be scrutinised, the hon. Gentleman is right to recognise that today’s telephone conversation with Prime Minister Modi was just the start of the process. A press release has been published, along with a list of the top benefits, but we hope to publish a paper today setting out in more detail what has been agreed—the conclusion summary paper—and there will then be a process moving towards signature and a legal scrub of the text. However, as the Prime Minister made clear a few days ago, we will follow the process set out in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)]

Last week I had the pleasure of meeting representatives of the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry when they came here with my old friend Piyush Goyal. I congratulate the Minister and his officials, as well as FICCI and the India Global Forum—under the leadership of Manoj Ladwa—and, indeed, everyone who has spent so many years laying the groundwork for this agreement.

The Minister recognised the doubling of India’s service and IT exports over the last decade and the benefits that we can gain from engagement and co-operation in respect of the service and knowledge economy, but I think it important for him to outline further what the benefits of the double contribution convention on national insurance will be, and how they will facilitate that engagement and co-operation for our workers in India.

[Mr Alexander]

I thank my hon. Friend for his generous words of congratulation. I know that the bilateral relationship between the United Kingdom and India has been a constant feature of his long service in the House, and a particular focus of his parliamentary work. He is right to recognise, in the context of both digital services and the services sector more widely, the huge potential mutual benefits for the United Kingdom and for India working together, and he is right to recognise the broad and deep relationship between our two countries—as I have said, 1.9 million people with Indian heritage live in the United Kingdom—but, as his question suggested, it is also right to recognise quite how dynamic the Indian economy is today. It has the highest growth rate in the G20, which is expected to remain above 6% over at least the next five years. Given that ours is a largely services-based economy, notwithstanding our excellence in advanced manufacturing, the opportunities for UK service exporters are huge and growing.

Ukraine

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the parliamentary staffers who have done such significant and important work. On the right hon. Gentleman’s important question about reaching out beyond Europe, I agree with him and we are doing that. This needs to be as broad a coalition as we can put together, with different capabilities. Each country should make whichever contribution is the most significant from its point of view, and I thank him for his support over the weekend.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister deserves plaudits for the skilful way in which he handled his visit to Washington last week, as he does for the resolve that he has shown in standing against Russia’s illegal invasion of the sovereign state of Ukraine. Surely, though, this is a moment to accept that the post-war international settlement has now been fractured and that the necessary rise in defence spending should be achieved by changing the fiscal rules, not by cuts to international aid, which will only see more people slain by famine, drought, disaster and war.

[The Prime Minister]

The reason why we will not change the fiscal rules is that we need economic stability. We experienced economic instability only a few years ago, under Liz Truss. The loss to our aid budget and all budgets would be far more profound if we go back to instability, and I am not prepared to do it.

US Steel Import Tariffs

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alexander]

If the hon. Gentleman has an appetite for trade realism, let us get real: the Prime Minister for whom he worked failed to do a US-UK trade deal. Let us also get real about the fact that the central underpinnings of the party of which he is a member at the time of the Brexit referendum—that we were in a less protectionist world, that we would have a functioning World Trade Organisation system and, indeed, that we would have major trading blocs seeking to take barriers down rather than put barriers up—have all been misplaced. His leader, the now Leader of the Opposition, generously conceded a couple of weeks ago that there was no growth plan following the United Kingdom’s exit from the EU. It is for this Government to clean up the mess that his Government left.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)]

Under WTO rules, any country can impose tariffs when it believes there is unfair subsidy of the exports presented by the other country, but so far I have not heard America put forward any argument that there is unfair subsidy of our steel industry. What discussions is the Minister having with the WTO about this?

[Mr Alexander]

I can assure my hon. Friend that we are in regular dialogue with the WTO. I was in touch only this morning with Simon Manley, our exemplary British ambassador in Geneva. We were also very clear at an early stage—since July—that we were backing Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala as the next director general of the WTO. I had the great privilege of working with Ngozi when I was the UK governor of the World Bank during a previous era of Labour Government. The UK is committed to standing behind her exemplary leadership of the WTO at an admittedly very challenging time for global trade.

Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 Report

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Wednesday 4th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The question of external scrutiny is really important, and we will, of course, report annually. As the right hon. Gentleman probably knows, the report has a recommendation on scrutiny that we want to look at carefully and discuss with the community, which has strong views on this. Obviously, we will take into account the views of Members on both sides of the House, including on whether this is something a Select Committee should look at. I am not sure it is my role to tell a Select Committee what to look at, but I agree that the question of external scrutiny and accountability is really important. We have to make sure that the most robust scrutiny is in place.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)]

I do not think I have ever heard my right hon. and learned Friend speak more powerfully, more personally or more movingly than he did in this statement. I know that the more than 20,000 residents in my constituency who are still living in high-rise blocks with the nightmare of fire risk constantly upon them will welcome what he said about the Government taking a consistent and measured view of the recommendations, and moving to implement them systematically. They will also welcome what he said about the prosecution of those responsible for what Sir Martin called “systematic dishonesty” and

“deliberate and sustained strategies to manipulate the testing processes”.

I reinforce what the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) said about remediation. Many of the owners of these blocks have sold on to further owners, and to further owners beyond that. The Prime Minister spoke about subcontracting, but there has also been on-selling. Some of those owners live in tax havens such as the British Virgin Islands, and they are simply not complying. They are not even applying to the building safety fund to get this remediation work done. Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider very carefully what powers the Government can take in order to take control of these buildings, get the work done and then recover the costs, if necessary by acquiring and selling the buildings themselves?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that very real issue. One of the things we need to do is look at what further powers may be necessary. We cannot suggest for a minute that the existing legislation, guidance and policy is sufficient. We need more powers, and we will look at that and bring proposals back to the House. There will be a general debate, of course, because I know that many Members will want to discuss particular issues facing constituents who are fearful of the conditions in which they live.

Covid-19 Inquiry

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Friday 19th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Pat McFadden]

I thank the hon. Member for her questions and the spirit in which she asked them. The truth is that it is easy for any of us to say, “Lessons must be learned,” and whenever anything goes wrong, people say that. The proof is in the practice. Will it be shown in practice? That is the ultimate test for us all.

I am happy to confirm to the hon. Member that, just as I said to the Opposition spokesperson, yes, we are happy to work across the aisle on this and to consider suggestions. My colleagues at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport are considering the recommendations on the memorial.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)]

The Minister spoke of resilience. He is aware that Northwick Park hospital in my constituency was the epicentre at the start of the pandemic, and the lack of resilience meant that nurses there had to wear bin bags to protect themselves. I noted that he spoke of Grenfell in his statement. That was fundamentally important, because this is not simply about resilience in health. In that regard, I ask him to look at the issue of reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete. The same RAAC that caused problems in our schools was used in many housing developments at the time. We need to be resilient to any potential disasters in that respect, too.

[Pat McFadden]

I echo my hon. Friend’s tribute to the work of the NHS staff in his constituency. RAAC in public buildings is part of the Government’s inheritance. Just because the problem has slipped down the news agenda somewhat, that does not mean that it has gone away. In time, we will have to address it to ensure that such buildings—whether housing accommodation or public buildings—are safe for people to live in, work in and be treated in.

Debate on the Address

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Wednesday 17th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

I begin by congratulating the Prime Minister on his first King’s Speech. I am sure it is an incredibly important moment for him and his family and I wish him well over the months to come. I am sure it will be an incredibly challenging time, but I repeat my best wishes to him and all his new colleagues beside him on the Government Benches.

I want to reflect first that, at Prime Minister’s questions on the day the election was called, I perhaps goaded the former Prime Minister in respect of calling a general election—indeed, I think I referred to him as being feart should he not do that. I am not sure entirely who out of the two of us fared worse from his decision to do so; maybe that is something we can both reflect upon in due course.

The opportunity now in front of this Labour Government is enormous. They have a parliamentary majority that will go down in history, and that majority affords them something incredibly important: the ability to deliver change. What that change looks like, and perhaps more importantly what it feels like, for people in their homes is so important. My colleagues and I on the SNP Benches will do everything we possibly can to be as constructive as we can—[Interruption.] We will! However, I was a bit disappointed today, not necessarily by some of the things that were in the King's Speech, but by some of those things that were not.

In that regard, I bring the House’s attention to the amendment that my colleagues and I, ably supported by other Members from across the Chamber, have tabled in relation to the two-child benefit cap. That iniquitous, heinous policy was brought in by the former Conservative Government in 2015. Each and every one of us in this Chamber notes that it retains children in poverty—hundreds of thousands of children across these isles. In Scotland alone, it impacts 27,000 households and it is estimated that 14,000 children would immediately be taken out of poverty were it to be scrapped, but it was not mentioned in the Government’s programme for government today.

Instead, all we have heard is that a taskforce will be created, with no timeframe for that taskforce and no indication when it will conclude. All the while, those children will remain in poverty. Surely it should be the bare minimum expectation of a Labour Government that they would seek to do everything they possibly can immediately to lift children out of poverty, and I am particularly interested in the views of Scottish Members of Parliament from the Labour party in this regard.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)]

Could the hon. Gentleman explain to the House why the SNP Government in Scotland, who have the power to do that, have not?

[Stephen Flynn]

I would be more than happy to enlighten the hon. Gentleman in that regard. As he knows, in the UK, we have reserved policies and we have devolved policies, and some 70% of welfare policies are reserved to this Parliament. The Scottish Government have sought over recent years to mitigate the worst excesses of the Conservatives. With some £8 million-worth of money that we could spend on other things, we choose to mitigate Tory policies—including, of course, the likes of the bedroom tax; I am sure he would be keen to see those on his own Front Bench mitigate and end that particular policy.

However, we do that within the confines of the financial remit set, in large part, by this place.

If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting—and I am sure some of his Scottish colleagues would agree with him—that the Scottish Government should mitigate, he and the Government should outline where that money should come from. Should it come from Scotland’s NHS, our schools, our police or our budget for young people? The reality is that the constraints placed upon Scotland by this place do not afford us the opportunity to mitigate, and frankly, I find it absurd and deeply disingenuous to suggest that the remit of Scotland’s Parliament should be to mitigate Westminster. Our horizons should be so much greater than that.

I return to the point that I was making. Scottish Labour Members supposedly agree with the Scottish National party that the two-child cap should and must be scrapped, so how will they vote? Will they follow the lead of their Prime Minister in London, or will they follow the lead of the leader in Scotland and respect the views of the people they were sent here to represent?

Despite my great disappointment, there is one area in which I hope the Prime Minister can put a smile on my face: GB Energy. I am moderately surprised that we have not yet had an announcement that it is to be headquartered in Aberdeen—perhaps in the Aberdeen South constituency that I represent. Indeed, Aberdeen and Grampian chamber of commerce hired a van that has been patrolling the streets outside Parliament today calling for it to come home—that is the only time I will ever use those words—and it should come home straight to the energy capital of Europe.

Although I would welcome GB Energy’s placement in Aberdeen, I also want to see much more detail about what it will deliver. If I have read correctly, a cumulative £8.3 billion will go towards GB Energy over the next five years—£1.6 billion each and every year—but one hydro pump storage project in Scotland would almost blow that entire budget apart. We know that GB Energy will not sell energy, we know that it will not distribute energy, and it appears that it will not generate energy. It has been suggested that it will be an investment vehicle for projects to go forward, but if it is capped at £1.6 billion a year, I must question the Government’s ambition. How does that deliver the change that is required? The change that they previously agreed to requires some £28 billion each and every year. What a contrast with the ambitions that they once had. Of course, net zero will be absolutely crucial to our economic future—to the growth and prosperity that we all want—but ultimately that growth can come about only through productivity.

I would like to hear more from the Labour Government, who have a significant majority, about what they will do to reverse some of the Conservative party’s policies on migration. Migration dramatically and drastically impacts on higher education institutions in Scotland and in the constituencies of each and every Labour Member. We know that universities are a key driver of productivity. I wish to seek consensus across the House on migration, which might be moderately difficult given some of the people who now sit behind me. We need to stand up and be bold and brave in the face of those who seek to demonise migration and other those who come to work in our public and private sectors, care for us in our hospitals and teach our children. We should seek to increase migration, increase our economic output, grow our economy and enhance our communities. Brave politicians would do that, and I hope that Labour Members share that bravery.

Of course, our economy is not just about net zero, productivity or migration; it is also intrinsically linked to our relationship with the European Union. I look forward to seeing what the Government come forward with in respect of their proposed new relationship with our friends and allies in Europe. We should be seeking to rejoin the European single market; we should be seeking to rejoin the European customs union. It makes sense to all of us. The politicians in this House are afraid of doing so, but they will come to realise that the only way to achieve the aims that they want to achieve is to do just that.

On all those issues and so many more, we will seek to be a voice of reason in this House and to work constructively with Government Members. Over the coming hours and days, I look forward to hearing their contributions and what they intend to bring to our national discourse, as we all try to improve the lives of the people who we are so fortunate to represent.

Iran-Israel Update

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Monday 15th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Of course we want to avoid further escalation and bloodshed, which would be deeply destabilising for the region and risk more lives. That is a message that all Government Ministers will be taking to their counterparts across the region.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Iran sought to justify its unjustifiable attack on Israel on the basis that it was retaliating for Israel’s attack on its consulate. I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister said that in his telephone conversation with Prime Minister Netanyahu later today, he will urge de-escalation. In that telephone conversation, will he set out the measures that the UK will take if, in fact, Israel seeks to retaliate further?

[The Prime Minister]

I am not going to comment on hypotheticals, but of course we will calm heads to prevail everywhere across the region.

Resettlement of Afghans

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Tuesday 19th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

I commend the Government on the way in which they set up the Ukraine family scheme within a week of the Russian invasion. But the parallel family reunion mechanism for Afghans resettled or called forward for evacuation under pathway 1 of ACRS is still not implemented. I have more than 450 Afghan families in my constituency who are desperate to be reunited with families. Two years on, those families still have no way of bringing their loved ones to safety.

I believe the Minister may know of the case that I have spoken about before in the Chamber, of a constituent who sent me the photograph of his 15-year-old daughter in her coffin. She committed suicide for fear of what the Taliban would do to her, but her four sisters and their mother are still there. Under pathway 1, Afghans here have been given indefinite leave to remain, but that means that they cannot avail themselves of refugee family reunion; anyone applying for that is told that their application has been rejected as invalid. Will the Minister please increase the number of officials dealing with family reunion? It is a matter of honour, but also of huge personal commitment.

[Johnny Mercer]

I am always looking at what more we can do in this space. It is easy to forget the depth of the carnage in Afghanistan. We had someone in the scheme who was forced to sell one of his children. He emailed us and said, “I am going to have to sell my child tomorrow,” and he did. It is horrific. That is why we all need to lean in and work as hard as we can. What has happened there is extraordinary. We will continue to lean into that and do what we can in these horrific situations.