Oral Answers to Questions

Ben Coleman Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alexander]

I can assure the hon. Lady that the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which has a remit across the nations and regions of the United Kingdom, has already committed to supporting service providers with updated guidance. I assure the hon. Lady that we are talking to colleagues in Scotland and that we will also be talking to colleagues in Wales and, indeed, in Northern Ireland.

[Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)]

7. What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to assist local authorities in using public procurement to help create economic growth.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Georgia Gould)]

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

[Ben Coleman]

I thank the Minister for her reply and for the excellent work she has done in putting together the procurement strategy. It has been a passion of mine for many years that we do not use procurement just to get extra social value but extra economic value, which will help local firms and local growth. That is what this statement does, and I hugely welcome it. May I ask the Minister whether she intends to issue guidance to local authorities so that they know how best they can achieve economic value? For example, they could proactively tell small firms what contracts are coming up or train them in how to tender, which is very difficult for them. They could also encourage small firms to break procurement into lots, so that they have a better chance of bidding. Finally, they could stop requiring an unreasonable number of years of accounts to be shown before small firms are permitted to bid.

[Georgia Gould]

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

EU Trading Relationship

Ben Coleman Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)]

I am most grateful to you, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) on calling this important debate, which I am pleased about; as Members of Parliament, it is not often that we get a chance to speak so clearly about what we do to represent our constituents’ interests and the British interest.

Our job as Members of Parliament is to keep our country strong and secure, with a strong economy and strong defence, and to provide opportunity to everyone, not least our young people. That is what this debate is about: promoting the British interest. That lies at the heart of why we need to get a better deal from the European Union that gets growth for our country in the swiftest way possible, at a time when this Government are so committed to growth, by lowering the barriers and removing the red tape that have come out of the hopeless deal patched together so feebly by the last Government.

As has been said, we especially need to lower the barriers for small and medium-sized firms, which have been hit the hardest. I think of the specialist wine importer in my constituency that has to pay an extra £160 for every shipment.

[Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)]

Following the Tory Brexit deal, we have seen lorries backing up from Dover, through my constituency and deep into Kent now that we have customs and immigration checks. Does my hon. Friend agree that a deal to eliminate barriers on food and drink being exported to the EU would help to reduce friction at Dover and throughout our road network?

[Ben Coleman]

I absolutely agree. We need a veterinary agreement to improve the situation in our country. I agree with the proposal to allow British bands and creatives to tour more easily and that we should have more mutual recognition of professional qualifications to support our service industries. We should be as ambitious as we can. We should therefore start talking about a deal to end regulatory divergence, so that companies do not have to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on two sets of standards and two sets of testing regimes.

The situation we face as a result of the deal that the Conservative Government negotiated is not patriotism: it is self-sabotage, and we need to do something about it. Part of that is about us needing to do more to give opportunity to our young people, which is why I support having a controlled youth visa scheme that provides just that opportunity.

Finally, I turn to defence, which some of my colleagues have mentioned. The UK has a huge role to play in the defence of our continent; I do not think any European countries doubt that. It is clearly in all our interests across Europe for the UK and the European Union to sign a new security agreement. We need stronger defence and new jobs in the UK and right across the continent, and that is why our Government must be absolutely clear with some other countries in the European Union. Defence and security co-operation are too fundamental to dealing with the challenges that our countries face, and they must be decoupled from other political negotiations. They are too important to be tied to debates about fishing rights or quotas.

We need cool-headed, determined and ambitious negotiations with the European Union that back Britain. In that way, we can get the better deal that my constituents in Chelsea and Fulham and the British people deserve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) on securing this debate. I thank the many colleagues who contributed, and commend your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy, in giving so many colleagues the chance to do so. I also commend the efforts of the Business and Trade Committee, which has come up with a report containing many worthy and sensible suggestions.

We owe it to the British businesses that create growth, jobs and the wealth of our country to secure for them the most favourable terms for the UK in the tapestry of global trade, wherever the markets may be. That means focusing on areas of maximum opportunity wherever they are, and on sectors where we can benefit from growing markets, innovation and indeed our shared values.

We all seek more trade with our European neighbours, but we already have a tariff-free deal for the export and import of goods. There are some wins to be had: the European Central Bank, for example, is restoring clearing to the UK, which is pragmatic, sensible and a reflection of the facts on the ground; but those opportunities do not appear to us to be what the Government are focused on. Perhaps the Minister will correct us on that.

It is clear that Labour’s EU reset—perhaps to the welcome of many of the Minister’s colleagues—is actually a plan carried forward from Opposition dating back to the referendum in 2016, with the objective of overturning that referendum in substance, if not in name.

[Ben Coleman]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andrew Griffith]

I will not give way, as everyone has been very good on timing. I will get through my speech to give the Minister as much time as possible to deal with all of the points raised.

In all seriousness, across all western European economies, we face a real crisis of trust in politics and a rise in extremism among people who do not necessarily see the solutions to the problems their countries face in arguing them out reasonably, as we are doing today. Why any genuine democrat, whatever their personal views, could possibly think that reversing a decision made by the people in 2016 is the right approach—[Interruption.] Although it is refreshing to make common cause with the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy),who indeed does not do that, it is also refreshing, sort of, to hear the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) set out the misguided but at least honest approach of desiring to return to the rule of Brussels via a full customs union, which I understand is not on the Government’s agenda.

We Conservatives have set out five clear tests to protect people’s trust and confidence. There must be no backsliding on free movement, no new money paid to the European Union and no reduction in our fishing rights, including—I will take an intervention from the Green party’s hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) on this if she would like—no backsliding on the environmental protection for sand eels that the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds says is vital to the protection of British seabirds and puffins. I see no intervention coming, so I will move on, but the EU is litigating against the British Government right now to prevent that environmental protection measure from being implemented. The last two tests are: no rule taking, dynamic alignment or ECJ jurisdiction; and, notwithstanding working with anybody on a defence pact—I agree with the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) that there must be no linkage between defending European soil and the transactional approach to British fishing taken by some countries—no undermining of or compromise on the primacy of NATO. Those are the tests that, in our view, will maintain the trust of the British people. I hope that the Minister will put our fears to rest.

The Product Regulation and Metrology Bill currently before Parliament is perhaps one of the most blatant examples of how a Government may fail the test. It is a Trojan horse, a blank cheque forcing this Government to become a rule-taker. I realise that many colleagues are new to this place, although many are not and have much more distinguished service histories than myself, but I hope that when colleagues look at that Bill and it is scrutinised in the House of Lords Constitution Committee and the Commons legislative Committees, they will look at the deficiencies of that Bill under this or any other Government going forward.

We have heard calls for a return to open borders via a youth mobility scheme. While previous Governments have put in place youth mobility schemes of a certain volume, as the Government considers that return, it would be interesting to hear what the impact would be on British graduates, whose wage premium is the lowest it has ever been. What impact would opening the floodgates have on the rental crisis in London, or on the burdens of the NHS? There was some talk about improving education, but we already have visa schemes for work and visa schemes to come here to study. What will be the incrementality of a youth mobility scheme?

We have heard a number of times about this being a moment for cool heads, not for piling on retaliatory tariffs in a global trade war, and Members will commend themselves on how progressive and level-headed they are, but let us take a balanced view. It was not the US that unilaterally threatened to invoke article 16 to prevent British citizens having access to vaccines; it was not the US that kicked the United Kingdom out of Horizon, a scheme entirely separate from our membership of the European Union; and it is not the US that is still depriving British citizens of the use of e-gates when they travel—an opportunity that we afford visitors from the EU coming to this country, so let us just have some balance in that debate.

To be clear, given the relative scale of the opportunity and the fact that we already have a free trade goods deal with the European Union, were we in government, the Conservatives would have prioritised—right now—a US trade deal. It has been 170 days since President Trump was elected, but the Government have yet to publish any objectives for their negotiations with the US. Whatever we might think about those objectives, British exporters today are paying the price for the absence of that agreement. Through that absence of transparency, Parliament is being disrespected and none of us has any idea which businesses or farm sectors may pay the price for that deal in future.

Our hard-won freedoms offer us the unrivalled chance, if we seize it, to steer our own course in a difficult and uncertain world. We can have the best of all worlds: trade with Europe, North America, the gulf, Asia and Africa. The Conservatives would not pursue one of those many attractive opportunities in a prejudiced way at the expense of others, and I hope that is also the Government’s position.

European Union: UK Membership

Ben Coleman Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for opening the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee.

Banbury has a proud history as a hub for industry and manufacturing, from the aluminium works, which were crucial to the construction of aircraft during world war two, and which my grandfather later worked at, to the automotive supply chains, green tech start-ups and Formula 1 teams that call my constituency home today. Those companies and many others rely on smooth, efficient trade with the European Union.

The psychodrama of the final eight years of the last Conservative Government culminated in a botched Brexit deal that put up barriers to trade, soured relations with our closest allies and ultimately left our constituents out of pocket, so I welcome the reset in relations between the United Kingdom and the European Union that has taken place since the general election. We have a real opportunity to forge a new, more constructive relationship with our European friends.

Hundreds of constituents have written to me, signed petitions—including this one—and spoken to me on the doorstep about the damage that Brexit has caused. I have also had the privilege of hearing from and meeting business owners across Banbury who once enjoyed seamless access to European markets but now feel buried under the very paperwork and bureaucracy that Brexiteers once promised to eliminate.

Take, for example, Electric Assisted Vehicles Ltd, an exciting Banbury-based company manufacturing electric-assisted bikes. Those bikes represent the future of urban green transport, a sector in which the UK could be leading. However, instead of expanding easily across Europe, as EAV once could, it now faces an avalanche of paperwork. It has told me that what was once a single-page document is now 20 pages. That is a clear and direct demonstration of the previous Government’s failure to deliver a Brexit deal that works for British business.

Consider the BMW plant down the road in Oxford, a cornerstone of the UK automotive industry. When I spoke to workers alongside my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) a few weeks ago, it became clear that Brexit was a key factor in BMW shifting production away from the UK and towards the EU and China. The reality is that multinational manufacturers now find it cheaper and easier to downsize their workforces in the UK than in European counterparts. That is not a situation we should accept.

Banbury is home to a network of key automotive suppliers, including Magna Exteriors, Faurecia, HBPO and Borg & Beck, all of which rely on just-in-time supply chains in Europe. When delays at borders increase costs, additional import-export paperwork slows down deliveries, and rules of origin requirements limit market access, it is British workers who suffer.

Under the current UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement, goods must comply with certain rules of origin regulations to qualify for tariff-free trade. That is creating new challenges for businesses, particularly manufacturers, that previously enjoyed seamless trade with the European Union. For example, a UK-based bus manufacturer exporting to the EU must ensure that at least 55% of the vehicle’s value is derived from UK or EU components, but many manufacturers rely on parts from outside the UK and the EU, making it harder to meet that requirement. Rejoining the Pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention would ease those constraints, keeping manufacturers in European and global markets. If we rejoined the PEM, components sourced from all 51 PEM countries would count as local content, making it easier for British businesses to qualify for tariff-free trade. That would be particularly beneficial for the automotive, chemical, pharmaceutical and machinery sectors.

Although rejoining the PEM will not solve all the post-Brexit trade issues, it is a practical and immediate step towards restoring smoother trade flows. It would signal to the EU that the UK is serious about improving trade relations while staying outside the customs union and the single market, which were referred to earlier.

[Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)]

I support my hon. Friend’s encouragement for the UK to accede to the pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention. I was at a meeting last week of the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly in Brussels, which issued a recommendation to explore options for closer customs co-operation and alignment of regulatory standards—that goes further than the current UK Government position—to facilitate trade and economic growth. That could include, for example, UK accession to the Pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention, so I hope very much that my hon. Friend is pushing at an open door with both the UK and the European Union.

[Sean Woodcock]

I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. As I said, we have an opportunity to reduce barriers to trade, support manufacturing, attract investment and rebuild a closer relationship with Europe. The Government have rightly set a mission of making the UK the fastest-growing economy in the G7 by the end of this Parliament, and I believe that joining the PEM would be a logical step towards achieving that goal.

Covid-19 Inquiry

Ben Coleman Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Pat McFadden]

The shadow Minister, in his response, also asked about the general question of inquiries. I believe there is a legitimate question to be asked about whether there can be a quicker way for the state to admit when it is wrong and get justice for the victims. However, it is important that in the processes we set up we do not lose the valuable question of independence and the valuable capacity these inquiries have for the victims to have a voice, which has sometimes been denied in other areas. We have to have a system where the state can admit when it gets things wrong and which gets justice for those who have felt the consequences of that.

[Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)]

I was a cabinet member during covid, responsible for public health. As I listened to my right hon. Friend’s statement, I felt so relieved that we are about to replace the chaos experienced by me and so many people across the country at that time with a forward-looking, orderly and strategic approach. Among the many things that have been mentioned, I was particularly pleased by the idea of creating a national vulnerability map. That is hugely needed. On hearing that the Department will monitor the implementation of the commitments made in response to the inquiry, will my right hon. Friend come to the House regularly to update on that implementation?

[Pat McFadden]

This is just module 1; there are other modules to be published, and I will update the House in some form when the Government respond to those. Of course, on top of that there are regular opportunities to question me and the Ministers in the Cabinet Office either at oral questions or in front of Select Committees.

General Election

Ben Coleman Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)]

Happy new year, Mrs Harris. I appreciate that everyone is looking forward to the final speech—perhaps this will be the final speech before the Front Benchers.

I did not know how this debate would go, so I was very interested to come here to hear what people would say. I hope it has been somewhat useful to people who are not used to being here, including those who, like me, have been here for five minutes. Like many Members here, I was elected in July, and I have a majority of 152, so I know that what I had to say was not universally popular with the all the people I was standing to represent. As the Member for Chelsea and Fulham, I know that I have a lot of work to do to persuade the people of the country that what the Labour Government hope and plan to do is good, and to prove to them in the long run that we should be re-elected.

I know there is a lot of cynicism out there. We attack each other a lot of the time, but I hope we have learned some things today. How many years are we having to make up for? It is 14 years; I thought Opposition Members might have forgotten that. But today we have not really explored the crux of the motion, which is that our manifesto made promises that we have not kept—although a number of my colleagues addressed that very well in passing. My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson) said that we must proceed on the basis of facts and that, to paraphrase him, we must be decent in doing so.

Other Members said that we are depressing, that we have talked the economy down and that we are bringing the country to a stalemate, so it is useful to remind them of what is good, positive and exciting about this Labour Government, who were brought in to effect change. I will do that in a very boring way: by reading words from the manifesto.

I used to be the deputy leader of Hammersmith and Fulham council in London. I know that nobody believes what is put in a manifesto—it is almost a given that 10 commandments come down, and the manifesto is full of lies—so we used to stick up our manifesto on the wall of the council cabinet chamber, and tick off items as we went along; anybody who came in could see us doing that. So let me tick off a couple of things that have been mentioned today. We said in the manifesto—these are the words, which I appreciate that very few people other than keen Labour candidates such as me have read—that we will

“immediately abolish Section 21 ‘no fault’ evictions”

to deal with the massive problem of the cost of rental and the crap quality of many of the places in which people are forced to live. We said that we will

“prevent private renters being exploited and discriminated against, empower them to challenge unreasonable rent increases, and take steps to decisively raise standards, including extending ‘Awaab’s Law’”—

which is about damp and mould—“to the private sector.” We have done that. We introduced the Renters’ Rights Bill. It was in the manifesto, and we have done it.

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

Order. Mr Coleman, I remind you that I am the audience, not the Public Gallery.

[Ben Coleman]

Forgive me. Thank you very much, Mrs Harris—I appreciate that reminder. I apologise to those in the Public Gallery for turning my back on them, if I may say that through you, Mrs Harris.

As we are accused of not keeping our promises, I will boringly quote from the manifesto. On new homes, we said:

“Labour will get Britain building again…We will immediately update the National Policy Planning Framework”

to enable us to build 1.5 million homes. We are bringing in the new planning and infrastructure Bill.

We said that we will

“build an NHS fit for the future…Labour’s immediate priority on health will be to get a grip on the record waiting list.”

I will not list all the things we have done; hon. Members can read tonight’s news. We have done masses and masses, including putting £25.7 billion into the NHS from money raised in the Budget. I appreciate that not everybody has liked the way we raised money in the Budget. They do not have to like it—there will always be differences of opinion—but we have taken the money we have raised and put £26 billion into the NHS.

We also said in the manifesto that we would improve inclusivity for children with special educational needs, ensure that

“special schools cater to those with the most complex needs”,

and improve mainstream education for disabled children. Not everybody likes the way we raised the money in the Budget, but £1 million of that money has gone into improving education in mainstream schools for disabled children and children with special educational needs.

We have a problem that people do not have enough money to live on, and the minimum wage is all that many people rely on, so we said:

“Labour will…make sure the minimum wage is a genuine living wage. We will change the remit of the independent Low Pay Commission so for the first time it accounts for the cost of living. Labour will also remove the discriminatory age bands, so all adults are entitled to the same minimum wage”.

We have raised the national minimum wage and the national living wage; that is a pay boost for 3 million people. We said in the manifesto that we would do it and we kept our promise: we have done it. We have asked the Low Pay Commission to end the discriminatory age bands and to look at including the cost of living. We have talked about Great British Energy; we made pledges there, and we have delivered them by establishing Great British Energy. We said:

“Labour will fund free breakfast clubs in every primary school, accessible to all children.”

We are doing that; we are introducing free breakfast clubs. I am sorry to quote from the manifesto at such length.

[Damian Hinds]

What does the hon. Gentleman think should happen with free breakfast clubs in secondary schools?

[Ben Coleman]

I am not here to say what should happen to the free breakfast clubs in secondary schools—we can have that debate another time. I am here to respond to anybody in this Chamber who says that the Labour party is not keeping its promises; I am reading out those promises word by word.

I will talk about sewage, of which there is plenty. The manifesto says:

“Britain’s coasts, rivers, and lakes are being polluted by illegal sewage dumping… Labour will put failing water companies under special measures to clean up our water.”

We have brought in the Water (Special Measures) Bill, which has had its Second Reading and will strengthen regulation. Water companies and bosses can be fined; we can ban bonuses; and there will be new environmental standards. It is all there in our manifesto and in what we have done.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I want to give the hon. Gentleman a little more time. He is very keen to quote from the Labour manifesto. Will he comment on the third paragraph of the page introducing that manifesto, which states:

“It contains a tax lock for working people—a pledge not to raise rates of income tax, national insurance or VAT.”?

[Ben Coleman]

This is where—[Interruption.] I’m sorry; does the right hon. Gentleman want me to answer the question? [Interruption.]

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

Order. Ben Coleman to resume his speech.

[Ben Coleman]

This is where it turns into politics. By that, I mean that we very clearly promised in the manifesto not to raise income tax or national insurance on working people—that was directly understood—but the Labour party did not promise not to raise the national insurance contributions of employers, which is what has happened. I understand the concerns and problems that has raised; I am simply saying that we have done what we said we would do in the manifesto, and we have not broken our promises. [Interruption.] No matter how much you professional gentlemen who have been here for 20 years yell at me—I have been here for six months—it is simply the case that what is in our manifesto, which I am reading out word for word, is what we are delivering.

I will finish by talking about borders. We said:

“Labour will stop the chaos and go after the criminal gangs who trade in driving this crisis. We will create a new Border Security Command, with hundreds of new investigators, intelligence officers, and cross-border police officers.”

We have already increased the number of enforced returns of those who have committed crimes and have no right to be here; the number is up by nearly 30% on the same period last year. We have also established and invested in the Border Security Command, as we said we would. Hon. Members may disagree with the things that we have done because they do not like them and have never liked them, but do not say that we have not kept the promises in our manifesto, because we have.

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

Thank you, Mr Coleman. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Ben Coleman Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 15th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[John Glen]

If the hon. Member takes the trouble to read the reasoned amendment, he will know the position of His Majesty’s Opposition. Let me get back to what his Government have not done. Their plan is simply to kick out 92 peers from the other place. I am afraid that just will not cut it.

[Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[John Glen]

No, I will make some progress, as there is not much time.

As with many areas of policy, and as witnessed in these first 100 days, the Bill exposes that, despite all those months sat on the Opposition Benches, the Government do not have a coherent plan with the next steps set out.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister without Portfolio (Ellie Reeves)]

It is a pleasure to close this important debate on the Second Reading of the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill. The hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) reminded us in his contribution that today marks three years since the murder of our friend and former colleague Sir David Amess. I am sure that the thoughts of all of us across the House are with his family.

I thank Members from both sides of the House for their thoughtful and measured—at times—contributions to the debate. It has been a debate many years in the making, and it is an important moment in the history of this country’s legislature.

I want to take the opportunity to congratulate all the Members who made their maiden speeches today: my hon. Friends the Members for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Claire Hazelgrove), for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley), for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell) and for Glasgow North East (Maureen Burke), and the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone).

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire recalled campaigning at the general election in the great Welsh weather, which reminded me of the rally I did with him in the pouring rain on that first weekend. Happily, I remembered my umbrella.

I am sure that all those who made their maiden speeches today will make a fantastic contribution to this Parliament and to their constituencies, which they talked so passionately about, and I wish them all the best with their parliamentary careers.

As we heard earlier from my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office, this important Bill delivers on the Government’s manifesto commitment and is the first step in bringing about wider reform to the House of Lords. We firmly believe that the time has now come finally to end the hereditary aspect of the other place—a feature of our constitution that makes us an outlier among nearly all other democracies.

[Ben Coleman]

We are talking not just about today but about what happened 25 years ago. Looking back at today’s debate, has my hon. Friend been struck, as I have, by Opposition Members’ saying that this reform has come too soon, that there has not been enough discussion, that it will cause dire consequences and that we should be looking wider? Those are not arguments from today but from 25 years ago. Does she not think that the Conservatives should be straight and not just fluff things—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Interventions should be short.

Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 Report

Ben Coleman Excerpts

Wednesday 4th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We are taking action on that important point about leaseholders, be it in relation to insurance or in relation to other issues of which the House is well aware. It is important that is included in the work we take forward, and I am absolutely committed to ensuring the quality of council housing and social housing as we build those 1.5 million homes. As the whole House knows, it is not just a number that we are talking about. Each and every person who lost their life is a human being to be respected, cherished and remembered for who they were.

[Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)]

On the Chelsea council estates that I have the honour of representing, Grenfell and the incompetence and indifference shown by the local council and the tenant management organisation, both before and after the tragedy, are still very much discussed. One of the striking things brought out by the report is the extraordinary response of the local community where the official response failed. It was heartening to hear the Prime Minister talk about a rebalancing of power, which is essential. I hope that we will ensure that councils gather proper information on the disabled people living in social housing, 15 of whom died in the Grenfell fire, to ensure that they can be evacuated safely in such a situation.

As well as taking action against companies, which I fully support, will the Prime Minister commit to working closely with local authorities to implement the report, and to protect our fellow citizens, whether they live in social housing or not, from this sort of thing happening again?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. It was really hard to read the part of the report that deals with the indifference and disrespect after the tragedy. I would have thought that after such a tragedy, whatever the failures that went before, these people would at the very least be treated with the utmost respect, yet the same disregard and lack of basic respect and dignity continued. That is part of what this report is about.

It is important that there are plans in place for disabled people, and we have taken that forward for people with disabilities who are housed in circumstances in which they clearly need an evacuation plan. Of course we will work on this with local authorities and all relevant authorities.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ben Coleman Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

3. What recent estimate he has made of the cost to the public purse of fraud in public procurement during the covid-19 pandemic.

[Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)]

22. What recent estimate he has made of the cost to the public purse of fraud in public procurement during the covid-19 pandemic.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Georgia Gould)]

As the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster set out, the previous Government allowed waste and fraud to spiral out of control. Latest estimates show £10.5 billion of estimated fraud and error in the covid-19 schemes. That waste of taxpayers’ money is unacceptable and the new Government are taking action. This week the Chancellor announced that she will appoint a new covid counter-fraud commissioner. It will use every means possible to recoup public money.

[Georgia Gould]

My hon. Friend is right that the previous Government oversaw VIP lanes that led to millions in waste, and we are still unpicking the impact of that lack of oversight. I have met the Public Sector Fraud Authority to set out my commitment to strengthening the counter-fraud approach across Government. As I have said, the counter-fraud commissioner has been introduced to support their work, and will use every means possible to recoup public money, reporting directly to the Chancellor.

[Ben Coleman]

In my corner of London, concerns have been expressed about a particular supplier being awarded contracts worth more than £25 million for useless PPE, after being put forward by a former Minister in the VIP lane. Could the Minister say more about how the Public Sector Fraud Authority and the Treasury will ensure that every penny that can be returned is returned to the public purse?

[Georgia Gould]

I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to hear more about the individual example from their constituency. As I have said, I have met the Public Sector Fraud Authority. We have set out that tackling fraud is an absolute priority for the Cabinet Office, and we will use every lever available to us to get back what is owed to the British people. The Public Sector Fraud Authority is already working closely with the Treasury on the role of the counter-fraud commissioner, and will continue to do so.

Covid-19 Inquiry

Ben Coleman Excerpts

Friday 19th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Pat McFadden]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the issue of care homes, where it was such a difficult situation throughout the pandemic. We were trying to get the right PPE to the staff. It was a huge problem during the early weeks of the pandemic. I remember raising questions about that, and it just exposed what a scramble for safety there was, particularly in the early months. She is right to urge us to learn the lessons from that.

[Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Mr Speaker, as you will have noticed, and as other people have referred to, the report states that there was a failure to engage appropriately with local government in preparing for the pandemic. Sadly, that failure continued throughout the pandemic. I had the dubious pleasure of being the cabinet member for health and social care in Hammersmith and Fulham council throughout the pandemic. We had to fight to close our care homes because the hospitals, under instruction from the Government, were discharging residents without testing and would not listen to us and would not stop. We had to fight to get vaccination in our local pharmacies, and we had to fight to establish a local test and trace system, which then reached 99% of people when the Government were only reaching 62%. Does my right hon. Friend agree that further stages of the inquiry, or what the Government now do, should identify and learn from the previous Government’s failure to engage appropriately with the local authorities not only before but during the pandemic?

[Pat McFadden]

The points that my hon. Friend makes about local government are well made. As I have said, my experience in my local authority area was that I thought the local council stepped up. Sometimes the issue of who is vulnerable and where they are is much easier for a local authority to know than central Government. The spirit of co-operation that I called for in my opening statement is in the public interest and the national interest, and it is what we have to do. If we co-operate, we will be stronger.