Lord Mandelson
Chris Ward Excerpts(1 day, 11 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)
I beg to move a manuscript amendment, to add to the end of amendment (a):
“which shall instead be referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament.”
I start by thanking everyone who has contributed to the debate—the tone was overwhelmingly constructive, serious, and aimed at getting to the truth. I want to thank a few Members in particular, beginning with the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), who got the tone exactly right, asked a number of serious questions that I will come to, and reminded us of the importance of the matter at hand. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop); while he disagrees with me, he did so agreeably, and put his case very well and with passion. I also thank the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith), who reminded us of the origins of the Humble Address—when I was a political adviser on the Brexit team in opposition, they looked a bit more clever than they do today. I thank him for his speech and the spirit in which he made it. In particular, I highlight the incredibly powerful and commanding speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet), who rightly brought the voice of victims to this House. She did so brilliantly, and I thank her for that.
It is clear that Members in all parts of the House share the public’s anger at Mandelson’s treachery, lies and deceit. As the Prime Minister said earlier:
“Mandelson betrayed our country, our Parliament and my party.”
He betrayed our Government.
Chris Ward
I will just make a little progress, then I will give way.
Mandelson lied to the Prime Minister. He lied during the vetting process, which I will return to, because a number of Members raised it, and I suspect he is still lying now. That is why, since new information came to light over the weekend, the Prime Minister has acted in a number of ways.
Several hon. Members rose—
Chris Ward
I will give way, just let me complete this point.
On Monday, the Prime Minister instructed the Cabinet Secretary to investigate all papers released by the US Department of Justice. The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister also made a statement to this House. On Tuesday, the Cabinet Secretary decided to refer certain material to the police with the Prime Minister’s support, and subsequently the police have launched a full investigation, with which we will co-operate fully. That investigation must go everywhere the evidence takes it.
Dr Mullan
It is pretty underhand of the Minister to make himself the champion of public anger about the person Mandelson was, because I can tell the Minister that the House is angry—both sides of it—not just with Mandelson, but with the Prime Minister for appointing him in the first place.
Chris Ward
As the Prime Minister has said many times, if he had known what he knows now, he would not have had Mandelson within a million miles of Government, and that is absolutely right.
Sir Julian Lewis
I will try to make the same point as my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), but in a less emotional way. Today, the Prime Minister was asked directly,
“did the official security vetting that he received mention Mandelson’s ongoing relationship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein?”
He replied, “Yes, it did.” The Minister says that Mandelson lied to the Prime Minister, but the point is that the Prime Minister knew that the relationship was ongoing. Even if Mandelson lied about some other aspects of the relationship, can the Minister not see that the fact that there was any ongoing relationship at all with a man who had been imprisoned for paedophilia and prostitution was an impossible position to defend? No subsequent lies or revelations alter the fact that the Prime Minister appointed Mandelson when he knew that he had been in that ongoing relationship.
Chris Ward
As the Prime Minister has said, he was lied to repeatedly by Mandelson. I will come to the vetting process in a minute, but the due diligence is within scope of this Humble Address. It will be released. The House will be able to see the process for itself.
Alongside further steps that the Prime Minister has taken in the past week, he has recommended to the King that Mandelson be removed from the Privy Council. He has instructed that legislation be drawn up—this was a point that the hon. Member for North Dorset raised—to strip Mandelson of his title and to make wider reform of the House of Lords process. In answer to the question raised earlier, that legislation is imminent and it will be given Government time. It will be brought to this House as soon as possible. Frankly, I wish it was already here now, but it will come very soon.
Several hon. Members rose—
Graham Stuart
Before the appointment of Peter Mandelson as our ambassador, he was appointed as a strategic adviser, a consultant, an advocate and a planner for the 2024 Labour party general election campaign. May I suggest that he was appointed—Government Members know this to be true—because he was treacherous, deceitful, a liar and a master manipulator in the political dark arts? That is why the Prime Minister appointed him. There is no defence, is there?
Chris Ward
Just to be clear, he was not appointed to any role in the 2024 election campaign. I remember that campaign very well. Let me clear up two other points that were raised in the debate. As Members made very clear earlier, Mandelson had no role in candidate selection at all. That is done by the national executive committee, and through the rule book. He had absolutely no role in it. [Interruption.] Let me finish this point. He had absolutely no role or say in any reshuffle either. Members keep repeating this, but it is absolutely, fundamentally untrue.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Who is the Minister giving way to? Four Members are standing.
Harriet Cross
Let us suppose that the Minister was appointing a new member of staff and he knew that a candidate had twice lost his job in the past because of misdemeanours. If he also knew that that candidate had continued a relationship with a convicted paedophile, would the Minister give him a job?
Chris Ward
The hon. Lady tempts me into hypotheticals that I am not going to get into. [Interruption.]
Several hon. Members rose—
Chris Ward
I am going to make some progress. I will give way later, but a number of questions have been raised about vetting, and I want to respond to them. The Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), outlined the process; I want to clarify that, but she was entirely right in what she said.
Before Mandelson’s appointment, there were two distinct and separate processes. The first took place in the Cabinet Office, where due diligence was followed in exactly the usual fashion for this type of appointment. The second, the national security vetting, was undertaken by UK Security Vetting. I want to be very clear with the House: none of that was skipped, and nothing was removed from the usual process. As the Paymaster General said earlier, we have strengthened the vetting process further.
Dr Caroline Johnson
The Prime Minister said clearly today that when he appointed Peter Mandelson to the job as His Majesty’s ambassador, he knew that he had an ongoing relationship with the paedophile Epstein. Can the Minister tell us what sort of relationship he thinks would be acceptable when appointing such a person?
Chris Ward
As the Prime Minister made clear, he was lied to repeatedly by Peter Mandelson on this. Information about that is in the vetting report, which will be published for the House.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
The Prime Minister stood at the Dispatch Box and said that he knew. The Minister says that documents such as the vetting report will be released, but all that is irrelevant. We are not interested in what the report says, because the Prime Minister said that he knew. The question for the Minister is this: why did the Prime Minister feel that it was appropriate to appoint Peter Mandelson to be one of the most senior ambassadors in the world? That has nothing to do with vetting; it goes to the heart of the Prime Minister’s judgment.
Chris Ward
Before Mandelson was appointed, there were obviously reports linking him with Epstein. That was looked into as part of the vetting process. Mandelson lied to the Prime Minister and hid information. When new information came out, the Prime Minister removed him. This information will come out.
Several hon. Members rose—
Chris Ward
I will give way to my hon. Friend. [Interruption.] She is the first Member behind me to whom I have given way.
Natalie Fleet
Does the Minister agree that we are here today because of the brave women who have spoken out and led us here? Does he agree that we have a responsibility—a shared responsibility as a House—to make sure that no stone is unturned, and that as a Government we will make absolutely sure that the victims at the heart of the paedophile Epstein’s crimes get the justice that they deserve, we will continue to call out this behaviour wherever we see it, and we will do everything we can, now that we are in government, to halve violence against women and girls? It is too little too late, but it is needed now more than ever.
Chris Ward
I entirely agree. I could not have put it anywhere near as well as that—and, as I said earlier, my hon. Friend made an incredibly powerful speech earlier. She quoted Virginia Giuffre at length, which was an extraordinarily powerful way in which to make the point, and she made it better than anyone, because it is the victims whom we should have in mind.
Alicia Kearns
One of my concerns has been that when Mandelson was our ambassador in Washington DC, he was responsible for a very large embassy. There may have been members of the Foreign Office staff there who had survived rape or sexual assault, or there may well have been sexual assaults during his tenure as ambassador. Can the Minister confirm that Foreign Office Ministers have reviewed all human resources decisions that Mandelson made while he was there as ambassador, to make sure that any women who had concerns about treatment, the way that they were spoken to or the things that they reported, received the support that they deserved?
Chris Ward
Obviously anyone who made any allegation or report such as that would be treated seriously. I will take that up with Foreign Office Ministers and come back to the hon. Lady, because she raises an incredibly serious point.
Several hon. Members rose—
Chris Ward
I will give way one more time to the former Attorney General, and then I will move on.
Sir Jeremy Wright
I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way; I know he wants to move on to the motion, but just before he does so, I would be grateful for some reassurance from him on a point that was raised by my hon. Friend the shadow Minister. The Minister has moved the manuscript amendment. If the House passes this motion with the manuscript amendment, a volume of material will reach the Intelligence and Security Committee. He knows that our administrative resources are limited, and we do not know what volume of material may be coming our way. The House will expect us to do a thorough job and we will seek to do one, but can he reassure me, and the House, that the Committee will have the additional administrative resources, if it needs them, to consider that material properly?
Chris Ward
I thank the right and learned Member for his speech earlier and for his point. Absolutely, yes; I completely recognise the point he is making. A lot of documents are covered by this motion—that is not a complaint; it is an observation. The ISC has the authority and respect of this House, and it would need resources to go with this task. If that is agreed, we will ensure that it gets those resources in the usual way.
Sir Julian Smith
Could the Minister confirm on the Floor of the House that the Government will also include details of how they managed conflicts of interest between Peter Mandelson’s shareholding in Global Counsel and his activities as ambassador? Specifically, could he look at the background and come back to the House about two contracts, one to Anduril technologies and one to Palantir? Those were direct-award contracts, and at least one of those companies was a client of Global Counsel.
Chris Ward
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that and, as I mentioned at the beginning, for the way that he went about his speech. That will all be within the scope of the Humble Address. If there are specific further points regarding direct procurements which the Cabinet Office needs to look into, I will write to him and come back to him on them, because that is a fair point.
Alex Burghart
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; he is being very generous with his time. The Humble Address is obviously about Lord Mandelson’s appointment. However, the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) was about two contracts, at least one of which, by direct award, went to a business that was a client of Global Counsel. The Prime Minister met that company while in Washington and it did not appear on his register of interests. Will the Minister assure the House that the Cabinet Secretary will look into the process that led to that direct award?
Chris Ward
As I said, everything in the Humble Address will be dealt with. On that specific point, I will follow up with the Cabinet Secretary and write to the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith).
Several hon. Members rose—
Chris Ward
I will get on to the motion, and then I promise I will give way.
As I said, the Government accept the spirit, purpose and intent of the Opposition’s motion, and we want to provide transparency and drain the swamp of Mandelson’s lies. Our amendment has two important points to it: one on national security and one on foreign relations. I want to cover those quickly, and then I will take interventions.
National security, as the Prime Minister has said from this Dispatch Box—and has said to me more times over the years I have known him than I can remember—is his No. 1 priority, and he will never compromise on that. That is why we wanted it in the motion and why we put the amendment before the House. There is precedent for that in a Humble Address. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) mentioned earlier, our Humble Address regarding Lebedev included the words:
“in a form which may contain redactions, but such redactions shall be solely for the purposes of national security”.
Our intention was to abide with that spirit and to make a clear point about national security. I will come on to how that will be treated by the ISC and the Cabinet Secretary in a second.
On international relations, as the Prime Minister said, these documents, which are significant in number, could well touch on sensitive issues concerning intelligence, trade or relations with other countries. For example, we would not want to release inadvertently information about our red lines in trade agreements, about peace negotiations and our position on things such as Ukraine, the middle east or Sudan, or information about sensitive assessments of our allies and the diplomatic conversations on which our lives depend. The point of the amendment is that we are trying to address that and to make it clear to the House, and we are trying to balance transparency with national security. That is what is most significant.
Jeremy Corbyn
I mean no disrespect to the Intelligence and Security Committee, but the Minister will have heard the points of order that the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and I made earlier. We need to know that there is a timetable for this inquiry, that it will not rule out specifically commercial interests such as Palantir and fail to investigate them, and that it will investigate the whole web of influence that Peter Mandelson had over so much in Government, which has brought about this dreadful position in which we appointed somebody who is a friend of a paedophile to be the ambassador to Washington. Many people watching today’s debate will not be happy that Parliament is merely shoving this issue off to one of its Committees, because they think there should be a wider public interest inquiry into the whole affair.
Chris Ward
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that. The police investigation will go wherever it needs to go. It will cover any criminality or allegations thereof. That is the right way to do it, and nothing will be hidden.
Chris Ward
I am going to make some progress, because time is pushing on. I will give way in a second.
Let me come to the manuscript amendment. We will agree with the ISC how it is going to work with us and provide scrutiny, and I welcome the commitment made earlier. As the Paymaster General set out, the process for deciding what falls in scope will be led by the Cabinet Secretary and supported by Cabinet Office lawyers working with the ISC. The Cabinet Secretary will take independent advice on the decision he has taken, and it will take two forms—first, through independent KCs, and secondly, through scrutiny of the approach he is taking, working hand in hand with the ISC. The Cabinet Secretary will write to the ISC to set out that process. He will meet members of the Committee regularly to ensure that they are content with it. In line with the manuscript amendment, papers that are determined to be prejudicial to national security or international relations will be referred to the ISC, which is independent, rigorous and highly respected. The ISC will then decide what to do with the material that it is sent.
Ms Billington
Just for further clarity, people are concerned that there will be a decision made by the Government, in the form of the Cabinet Secretary, about what is referred to the ISC. We are keen to know that the bulk of the documents will be in the hands of the ISC, which can make the decision about what needs to be kept private and what should be made public. Can the Minister clarify that the ISC will have control over what needs to be kept private and what can be made public?
Chris Ward
The release of information will be done in the way I have just set out. Either it will be done through the Cabinet Secretary working with independent lawyers or, if the material is deemed potentially to conflict with national security or foreign relations, it will be handed to the ISC, which is independent and can make a decision. To the point that my hon. Friend made earlier—this is really crucial—there will not be political involvement from Ministers or No. 10 in this process. The Cabinet Secretary and the ISC will work on it with lawyers.
Paul Holmes
I really must push the Minister, because he is giving conflicting messages. At one stage, he said that the direct contract award will be in scope of the ISC, without committing to any timescales. He has now said that the scope of the release of documents is a matter for the Cabinet Secretary, with no political involvement. As a political Minister, he has stood at the Dispatch Box to say that the direct contract award will be in scope. Will it be in scope or not?
Chris Ward
Any correspondence involving Peter Mandelson is within scope. As I say, that will be looked at by the Cabinet Secretary, who will make decisions with independent lawyers and working with the ISC.
Derek Twigg
Can I give an assurance that we in the ISC are very confident that we can do an effective job on this? It is worth pointing out that we cannot be told what we can and cannot publish. That will be a matter and a decision for us. May I ask for an assurance, following on from what the Minister has just said, that there will be no block whatsoever on the documents that the ISC should be getting?
Chris Ward
Yes, I can confirm that. I thank my hon. Friend, who has huge expertise. We will work with the ISC on this.
Several hon. Members rose—
Chris Ward
I am not going to give way any more. There are four or five minutes to go. I will make some progress, if that is okay.
As the Prime Minister mentioned today, there will have to be discussions with the Metropolitan police over material. The Metropolitan police has issued a statement today on material that will be released. I confirm to the House that material will not be released today, because of the conversation with the Metropolitan police, but it will be released as quickly as possible, in line with the process set out before the House.
Dr Chowns
The Minister has set out the difference between national security matters and issues which may be embarrassing to the Government—let’s face it, practically anything could damage international relations with Donald Trump; who knows what he is going to take offence at—but the process he has just outlined implies that the Cabinet Secretary will scrutinise every bit of information before deciding whether it gets released or whether it gets to the ISC. How long will that take? Will he give us an assurance on the volume of material he anticipates sending to the ISC and the timetable? What will be the deadline for releasing that material, either into the public domain or to the ISC?
Chris Ward
As I say, the timeline will be as soon as possible. We want to get on with this. There is a lot of material to go through. We will get to this as quickly as possible. Other Humble Addresses have taken a number of weeks or months. We want to be as quick as possible and we will work with the ISC as soon as we can to get it progressing. I hope the hon. Lady welcomes the spirit with which we take that on.
Several hon. Members rose—
Chris Ward
No more, I am afraid. I am so sorry.
I just want to deal with two more points. On a public inquiry, which a number of Members mentioned, as I say, there is an ongoing police inquiry that has the freedom to go where it wants and the co-operation of everyone in Government. We believe that that, along with the process we have set out, is the right way to proceed.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
Will the Minister clarify that the documentation will go to the ISC, and that the ISC, not the Cabinet Secretary, will be the decision maker on risk to national security and international relationships, and on what should be in the public domain?
Chris Ward
Let me try one more time. It will either be made public by the Cabinet Secretary, or it will go to the ISC and a decision will be made through the Committee. It will be done with the independence, resources and—
Several hon. Members rose—
Chris Ward
No, I am winding up now.
It is absolutely right for the House to have debated this incredibly important issue, and I thank right hon. and hon. Members for the spirit in which they have done so. The lies, venality and treachery of Mandelson shame this House. I, and the Prime Minister and I know hon. Members all around me, have nothing but contempt for the way Mandelson acted and lied to the British people. I am glad that this will now be shown to the British people. I share the anger and disgust of so many Members. We will comply with the amended motion and we will update the House on progress. With that in mind, I commend the manuscript amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
Question put and agreed to.
Manuscript amendment (i) to amendment (a) made.
Amendment (a), as amended, agreed to.
Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions to require the Government to lay before this House all papers relating to Lord Mandelson’s appointment as His Majesty’s Ambassador to the United States of America, including but not confined to the Cabinet Office due diligence which was passed to Number 10, the Conflict of Interest Form Lord Mandelson provided to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), material the FCDO and the Cabinet Office provided to UK Security Vetting about Lord Mandelson’s interests in relation to Global Counsel, including his work in relation to Russia and China, and his links to Jeffrey Epstein, papers for, and minutes of, meetings relating to the decision to appoint Lord Mandelson, electronic communications between the Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff and Lord Mandelson, and between ministers and Lord Mandelson, in the six months prior to his appointment, minutes of meetings between Lord Mandelson and ministers in the six months prior to his appointment, all information on Lord Mandelson provided to the Prime Minister prior to his assurance to this House on 10 September 2025 that ‘full due process was followed during this appointment’, electronic communications and minutes of all meetings between Lord Mandelson and ministers, Government officials and special advisers during his time as Ambassador, and the details of any payments made to Lord Mandelson on his departure as Ambassador and from the Civil Service except papers prejudicial to UK national security or international relations which shall instead be referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament.”
Oral Answers to Questions
Chris Ward Excerpts(2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)
I am delighted that the Government have negotiated associate membership of the Erasmus+ programme from 2027. That could open up opportunities for more than 100,000 young people from all backgrounds to learn, train, study or volunteer abroad. It is good news for further education colleges, universities and businesses, and is just one example of how this Government are building a strong new relationship with the EU that is in our national interest.
Matt Rodda
I thank the Minister for his answer and warmly welcome the Government’s new commitment to this scheme. It is hugely important to my residents in Reading, for families and young people, for employers and for science and technology. Could the Minister say a little more about how this wonderful scheme will help employers and growth in the Thames valley and help our local Reading University and the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts?
Chris Ward
I know that the scheme has been welcomed at many universities, including Reading. I know that my hon. Friend has campaigned on this for a long time. In my constituency, Sussex University was home to the first Erasmus student. When I visited last week, the university was delighted that it will have more students soon. I want to point out, though, that this is not just about universities; it is also about apprenticeships, FE colleges, youth workers and sports professionals. It is a huge opportunity for 100,000 people, so quite why the Conservatives and Reform oppose it is beyond me.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The Minister has mentioned apprenticeships. Does he agree that there should be opportunities through the future town funding that the Government have announced? Coleraine and Londonderry, in my area, should enable young people to take advantage of the opportunities and ensure that local employers offer more training and apprenticeships.
Chris Ward
As I have just said, this is about apprenticeships as well as universities. The hon. Gentleman should write to me and the Minister for the Cabinet Office about how we can roll this out. It is a UK-wide programme that will benefit all parts of the United Kingdom. The Minister for the Cabinet Office met the devolved Governments yesterday to discuss that and other matters.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
In his statement last month, the Paymaster General promised us that he had secured a great deal for the first year of the Erasmus programme. It is a technique that will be familiar to mobile phone and satellite TV customers around the country. Can the Minister tell us what the Paymaster General could not tell us in that statement: what will it cost in the second and subsequent years?
Chris Ward
It is a one-year agreement, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and we have negotiated a 30% discount. That is a good deal. It will be reviewed after 10 months, as he knows. At its heart, the programme is about opportunities for young people from all backgrounds—youth workers, sports professionals, universities and so on. If the Conservative party really wants to fight the next election promising to take that away and to narrow opportunities, I am afraid that it is making a big mistake —on this, as on so much else.
Mike Wood
I think the Minister has given the game away: he has just said that it would be wrong to walk away from that. He will know, as the whole House knows, that any negotiation is successful only if you know, and more importantly your negotiating partners know, that there is an alternative to a negotiated agreement. Can the Minister assure the House that, if the European Union is not able to offer similar terms and similar cost for second and subsequent years, he would be prepared to walk away from the negotiations?
Chris Ward
The cheek of the hon. Gentleman to talk about unsuccessful negotiations! The Conservatives had years to negotiate and they left a Brexit deal that narrowed opportunities, harmed our economy, harmed businesses and made it tougher for young people. We are very confident that this is a great deal for the British people. It will be reviewed after 10 months. If the hon. Gentleman wants to put himself in a position of narrowing opportunities for young people, he is making a big mistake.
Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)
The Government are committed to delivering the largest wave of insourcing in a generation. As part of that, we have consulted on plans to introduce a public interest test before any further services are outsourced and we will publish the results soon. Let me be clear: this Government will end the decade-long drive to outsource our public services and we will do so to deliver better value for money for taxpayers and better services.
Graham Leadbitter
The Minister repeated the promise that was made nearly 18 months ago when the Labour party came into power. We are not seeing a massive amount of insourcing at the moment. I have constituents in Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey who work on three different military bases as contractors. Many used to be civil servants and they have lost considerable pension benefits as a result of that outsourcing. There are many others in a similar position in Department for Work and Pensions offices, the Cabinet Office itself and other Government offices throughout the country. When can those workers expect to see some fairness in their contractual arrangements?
Chris Ward
I know that the hon. Gentleman has raised that point about workers in his constituency before. We are making progress. The Employment Rights Act 2025 will make some progress, particularly by reinstating the two-tier code. We have consulted on a public interest test. I will bring forward our conclusions and proposals on that very soon, but as I say, the central point is that this Government will reverse the decade-long drive to outsource and bring more powers and resources in-house to deliver better value for taxpayers.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
When the Government finally bring the in-sourcing process to fruition, they will have a lot more purchasing power over the services they buy and the goods they procure. Can the Minister give the House a categorical assurance that every penny of British taxpayers’ money spent using these new powers will be spent with British companies and British industries, so that we are supporting our own British economy?
Chris Ward
That is one of the Government’s goals. Prime Minister Carney said he thought that Canada should be Canada’s best customer. I think that Britain should be Britain’s best customer, and we should work towards that. As I say, we will publish the proposals soon and I hope that we can make progress quickly.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
I have been trying to get records from the Cabinet Office of a meeting held between Peter Thiel of Palantir, then Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings on 28 August 2019. I am getting conflicting data back. Is it in the public interest that the management of this information is being outsourced to Palantir?
Chris Ward
My understanding is that that has been dealt with by way of a reply to a written question that we have already put in the public domain.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
The Minister will be aware that too many retired civil servants are waiting too long to be paid their pensions and lump sums. Seventy thousand people are still caught up waiting for past discrimination to be addressed under the McCloud remedy, and there are already concerns about Capita’s management very early in its new contract period. Does the Minister share my concern that this is completely unacceptable and that urgent action, as called for by the Public and Commercial Services Union, is required? Can he provide the House with a full statement on Capita’s performance in administering the civil service pension scheme at the earliest opportunity?
Chris Ward
I know that this issue is affecting a lot of constituents who are former civil servants. I have had a lot of letters on it; I am sure everyone else has as well. The Minister for the Cabinet Office met PCS about the issue recently. He has also, I believe, met the chief executive of Capita. We are committed to holding Capita to account. We will do so, and if it is okay with my hon. Friend, the Minister for the Cabinet Office will write back to him with a fuller statement.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)
The Government are putting power, opportunity and resources in the hands of local communities and local businesses. Just last week, the House approved measures to reserve around £1 billion of contracts a year for local businesses in the UK. That will make a big difference to businesses in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend. We are consulting on further steps and will bring them forward soon.
Tristan Osborne
I thank the Minister for that answer. Under the last Government, social enterprises were decimated by cuts to their budgets during austerity. We have many good social enterprises in my constituency, such as Medway Community Healthcare, Emmaus and Medway Voluntary Action. What more can be done to support social enterprises after 14 years of austerity?
Chris Ward
I agree that social enterprises are the backbone of many communities. I pay tribute to the ones my hon. Friend mentions, and there are some in my constituency as well. I agree that we need to do more to open up procurement and to support social enterprises, as well as SMEs and the voluntary sector more widely. We published a procurement statement last year to help to address that, but we will go further on it soon.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
East Sussex county council has launched a scheme to fine East Sussex Highways when its roadworks overrun and cause disruption to local businesses. A clear case is that of Victoria Place, where businesses such as Gianni’s, Qualisea, Gr/eat Greek Cuisine and many more were disrupted by overrunning works to pedestrianise the street. Does the Minister agree that the fund should be used to help compensate those businesses for the disruption, and can the Cabinet Office support East Sussex county council to do just that?
Chris Ward
As half of my constituency is in East Sussex, I am always happy to support East Sussex county council. I think we are slightly off beam with the broad thrust of the topic, but I get the hon. Member’s point about the frustration that constituents, including mine, have with overrunning works. We will follow up with him if there is anything further that the Cabinet Office can do.
Jeff Smith (Manchester Withington) (Lab)
Mr Speaker
Order. That is a very important question, and I fully support it, but we have to shorten the questions to get others in. The Minister will give a good example in his reply.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)
My hon. Friend raises a really important issue that affects her constituency. As I said earlier, we need to do more to support great British businesses like Alexander Dennis. In the consultation, we are looking at reforming social value. I think it needs to go further; there should be meaningful social value that really helps local communities.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
Chris Ward
I absolutely do. As I have said previously, Britain should become Britain’s biggest customer. We have a procurement budget of £400 billion a year. In my opinion, we do not use that well enough to support British companies, but I am working with the Chancellor and colleagues across the Government to make sure that we do so in future.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
Last year, in their UK-EU trade deal, the Government sold out British fishermen, giving away 12 years of access to our fishing waters, and we have seen that the Government have form in using our fishermen as pawns in negotiations. Will a Cabinet Office Minister please confirm that, in any trade negotiation or sanitary and phytosanitary agreement, no part of our fishing industry will be returned to the common fisheries policy?
Draft Local Government (Exclusion of Non-commercial Considerations) (England) Order 2026
Chris Ward Excerpts(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Local Government (Exclusion of Non-commercial Considerations) (England) Order 2026.
This order has a simple but important purpose: to put power and opportunity, and to keep resources, in the hands of local communities and businesses. It will ensure that local authorities, parish councils and fire, waste and national park authorities in England can reserve contracts that are cumulatively worth around £1 billion a year to suppliers based in the UK or in their local community. It will boost small and medium-sized enterprises and voluntary groups by ensuring that they have a better chance of benefiting from local procurement, and it will cut red tape and simplify contracting regimes. It is also proof that this Government are using every lever at our disposal to ensure that public procurement drives growth and opportunity in every part of the country.
The order disapplies section 17(5)(e) of the Local Government Act 1988 in specific and carefully defined areas, to enable local authorities in England to reserve public procurement competitions for below-threshold contracts to suppliers based in either the UK or their local area. Below-threshold contracts are contracts that are valued below the financial thresholds set out in the Procurement Act 2023: approximately £207,000 for goods and services, and £5.2 million for works. Those may be considered lower-value contracts, but they matter enormously to local businesses and support local jobs. Last year, they accounted for over £1 billion of spend and for almost two thirds of the contracts awarded by sub-central authorities.
Currently, local authorities are prevented from awarding below-threshold procurements on the basis of supplier location, meaning that a local authority—for example, in the great city of Brighton and Hove—is unable to reserve procurements for local companies, even if doing so would boost local jobs, tap into local expertise and still deliver comparable value for taxpayers’ money. This Government believe that that should change, and that central and local government should not be agnostic about where public contracts are awarded, where jobs are created and where resources are concentrated.
It is important to note that the powers in the order are optional. Local authorities can decide whether the powers will benefit their communities and deliver better procurement opportunities, but we believe that they should have the freedom to use them if they wish, and we know from feedback that many are keen to do so. The order also seeks to boost transparency in local procurement. When authorities use these powers, they will have to advertise the opportunity and state clearly in their advertisement which area the competition is reserved to. Suppliers will therefore know up front whether they are eligible, and the public will be able to see how and if local authorities are using the powers.
On geographical scope, the order applies only to England, but the devolved Governments are aware of it, and we have been working with them and keeping them abreast of developments. Whether they wish to implement a similar policy is of course a matter for them, but we are happy to support them on that.
I have two further points to make. First, the order gives flexibility to local authorities to define the local area that will apply to a reserved procurement. It could be reserved to their own specific area—for example, Brighton and Hove council—or extended to include neighbouring counties or neighbouring London boroughs. That additional flexibility reflects feedback from local authorities, building on the consultation that the previous Government carried out. We think it better reflects the reality of how local government operates, and how local authorities can support jobs and services in their areas.
Secondly, the order can only be applied on a geographical basis, and not on political grounds. Section 17 of the Local Government Act, to which the order applies, was enacted to prevent politically motivated boycotts of foreign countries through procurement, and those safeguards are fully maintained. The order simply disapplies section 17(5)(e)—the geographical location provision—in two specific circumstances: for UK-wide reservation or for local area reservation, and only in relation to local thresholds. All other section 17 provisions, regarding political affiliations and so forth, remain in full force. This builds on the work that the previous Government had done in this space.
Before bringing the legislation forward, we listened and worked carefully with local authorities, which have been overwhelmingly supportive; indeed, many have been asking for this power for years. There is also strong support from the Federation of Small Businesses, which has described it as
“exactly the kind of practical reform we called for”.
Statutory guidance has been published to support the implementation, which we have worked on in consultation with the Local Government Association, and the previous Government consulted on similar proposals in 2023. We are standing on the shoulders of the Procurement Act, so I hope there will be a degree of cross-party consensus.
In conclusion, this order reflects the calls of local authorities, small businesses and communities. Building on the work of the 2023 Act, it will provide the tools for local authorities to keep around £1 billion in their local communities, with the prospect of much more to come. It also underlines the Government’s commitment to ensure that procurement is a lever for jobs, growth and opportunity across the country.
Chris Ward
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments and the spirit in which they were intended. I think that there is good agreement on this issue, and I will discuss each of his four points. First, on boycotts and divestment, as I said, the safeguards are essential and fully maintained by this order. We have worked in close liaison and built on the work that the previous Government did to ensure that is the case. The order disapplies only the geographic location provision in very narrow areas. Broader protections remain in place—there is no change to that.
As the hon. Gentleman says, the Procurement Act prevents contracting authorities from discriminating against suppliers that are entitled to the benefits of international agreements. That of course includes Israel and any World Trade Organisation signatory. Boycotts would be unlawful under that Act and remain completely unlawful. Councils could not do that under the order, as these are very narrow and specific measures. However, the hon. Gentleman’s point is well made, and it is one that I have looked at closely as we have gone through this legislation. I support the point he made.
Secondly, on local government reorganisation, when the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill goes through and reorganisation happens, the geographic areas will need to be updated in this legislation. If it is okay with the hon. Gentleman, I will ask my colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to write to him and follow up on the specific point about how that will go through. It has been taken into account as we progress.
On EU procurement models, for my sins, the hon. Gentleman is going to hear a lot more from me about EU models and how we go about our new relationship with the EU, because I will be taking the relevant Bill through Committee soon. The changes that will be made by that Bill and how we will deliver them are not affected by this order at the moment. He will hear a lot more about how we will change some of that as the proposed EU Bill goes through. I will follow up with him on that.
The hon. Gentleman’s final point was about how we will follow up with local government to ensure that it takes up these powers and uses them. As I say, this is an optional power; there is no compulsion for local government to use it. However, given the level of consultation that has been done under successive Governments, I am optimistic that such use will happen. We are working with the Local Government Association to try to raise awareness and drive through implementation. My Department, along with MHCLG, will also write to local authorities to inform them of the powers and of how they can apply them, and to offer them support to do so. We are offering support without compulsion, but we will continue to monitor the situation and try to drive their use.
I hope that responds to the points raised. This is about giving a power that local authorities have been requesting for a long time. I think that it will make a big difference to businesses across the country. I want to thank everyone who has worked on this under successive Governments, including those from MHCLG, the Cabinet Office and the LGA, for their support. I hope that all hon. Members will join me in supporting it.
Question put and agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
Chris Ward Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)
As you are aware, Mr Speaker, the Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office is at a funeral today and is therefore unable to attend this session, so he has asked me to reply on his behalf.
This Government are determined to deliver a closer relationship with the EU. As part of that, we are negotiating a bold SPS agreement, the potential benefits of which are huge: reducing unnecessary checks at the border, cutting costs for businesses of around £200 per shipment and, in the long run, boosting the UK economy by around £5 billion a year. We have started negotiations and hope to have them concluded by early 2027. This is just one example of this Government filling in the holes left by the Conservatives.
Mr Carmichael
I am sure we all understand the reasons for the Paymaster General’s absence today, although I am less clear on his reasons for being absent from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee next Tuesday; he has declined our invitation to attend. A bold deal is indeed something to be wished for, but only if it does not bring with it lots of unintended consequences for the farmers, food producers, chemical companies and others whose work will be impacted by it. If Ministers will not engage with the Committee, will the Minister give me some assurance that there will at least be engagement with those vital industry interests?
Chris Ward
I understand that the Minister for the Cabinet Office has offered to meet directly with the right hon. Gentleman, the Chair of the Committee, on this—he will get back to the Committee. We will obviously be engaging on this matter and showing scrutiny across Parliament as much as possible. This is an incredibly important part of the deal. As I say, the benefits of the agreement are potentially very important; it will be of real benefit to farmers and other communities.
Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)
The Government’s social value model provides opportunities to reward suppliers that recognise a trade union or other forms of worker representation. We are looking at further reforms to procurement to ensure that the rules do everything possible to boost jobs and skills and reward good work. I am working with trade unions, businesses and other organisations on this matter.
Lorraine Beavers
I refer to my entry on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Bidfood, which has public contracts with the Army, prisons and schools across the UK, has torn up a long-standing recognition deal with GMB and Unite, leaving workers open to fire and rehire. Does the Minister agree that public contracts should go only to businesses that recognise and work constructively with trade unions?
Chris Ward
I personally think all businesses should recognise and work with trade unions. Our social value model, which we are reforming and will shortly strengthen, allows contracting authorities to consider the economic and social impact and reputation of bidders. Of course, the Employment Rights Bill—the biggest upgrade in workers’ rights in a generation—will end the scandal of fire and rehire.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
On determining awards for public contracts, what steps are being taken to prioritise UK firms in public procurement, especially for the provision of vital equipment, like personal protective equipment, in our NHS?
Chris Ward
We are going to bring forward plans, hopefully in the next Session, to reform procurement rules. A big part of that, as the Chancellor has said many times, is to help people to buy British more, and to support local jobs and economies around the country. Despite all their other failings, the previous Government did make some progress on this matter through the Procurement Act 2023, and we will build on that in the next Session.
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)
Me again—it is not going to be all me, don’t worry!
I am delighted to say that we have held several rounds of negotiations with the EU about a youth experience scheme, which will be balanced, capped, time-limited and subject to a visa requirement, and will deliver huge benefits to young people. I have to say, one tragedy of the deal negotiated by the previous Government is that it reduced and narrowed opportunities for young people. This Government will change that.
Ben Coleman
The Chancellor said recently that an “ambitious” youth experience scheme with the EU would be good for growth and good for business. The Centre for European Reform has estimated that such an agreement could add nearly 0.5% to UK GDP over 10 years. Can the Minister reassure my constituents that the Government will maximise all the opportunities on offer for our young people from all backgrounds to work, study, do apprenticeships and volunteer in European Union countries in order to boost our economy and to rebuild cultural links after the damage of the Conservative party’s botched Brexit?
Chris Ward
Yes, I can. This agreement will make a real difference to jobs, maximising opportunities for young people and for cultural exchange. That is why we are working so hard on it, and it is why we are also working on an associate relationship with the Erasmus+ scheme. The exact parameters of that relationship are, of course, part of the negotiations, but we will update the House on it shortly.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
In October, more than 200 UK and EU cultural and creative organisations issued a joint statement calling for the UK to rejoin Creative Europe and take part in its proposed successor, AgoraEU, giving lots of young people access to grants and cultural exchanges. What assessment have the Government made of rejoining Creative Europe?
Chris Ward
As I said, one of the tragedies of the deal the last Government did was that it excluded opportunities for cultural exchange, particularly for young people. We are going to change that—it is part of the negotiations. I will ask my colleague the Minister for the Cabinet Office to come back to the hon. Lady on her specific point on the cultural bit, but in general, our aim is to get as close as we can to that agreement as quickly as we can.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)
As I said in response to an earlier question, we are in the process of negotiating the EU youth experience scheme, which came out of the agreement secured earlier in the year. We are also seeking associate membership in Erasmus. Those are just two examples of how we will try to take on a much closer relationship with the EU that will have benefits for young people, the economy and cultural exchange.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
Chris Ward
Small and medium-sized enterprises are the backbone of our economy, and we are looking at reforming procurement rules to do everything we can to make sure that the £400 billion a year we spend on this does everything possible to help small businesses. We consulted in the summer, including on late payments and reforming social value, and we are going to bring forward a package of reforms shortly on this.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
Chris Ward
I recognise the importance of this issue to my hon. Friend’s constituents. Amendments to Schengen rules are predominantly a matter for member states, but the Minister for the Cabinet Office has regular discussions with his counterparts in the EU, and I will ensure that he is aware of those concerns.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Last week, the National Security Adviser was due to appear before the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy. Did he? If not, why not?
Government Procurement
Chris Ward Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) for securing the debate. He raised a number of important and specific points, which I will answer shortly. If he will permit me, I will briefly set out the Government’s approach to procurement, not least because it is the first opportunity that I have had to do so as the Minister responsible for procurement.
I want to emphasise that this Government and I see public procurement as an incredibly important vehicle for social and economic change, and not in the slightest bit boring. Public procurement accounts for one in every three pounds of public spending, totalling some £400 billion a year, so it is a huge opportunity and responsibility to make sure that that budget is spent wisely, and that it does everything possible to boost British jobs and growth, and delivers opportunity and fairness across the country.
Gareth Snell
To follow up on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) about the great announcement that police forces will be able to buy things locally, when will the Minister extend that to ensure that British police services are buying British cars, that the Government car service is buying British cars, that the Motability scheme is using British cars and that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office fleet is using British cars? All those currently use foreign-made vehicles, which is not using British taxpayers’ money for British jobs.
Chris Ward
As my hon. Friend knows, the Budget announced progress on that with the Motability scheme, and the Chancellor has spoken many times about the need to buy British. Hopefully, we can start to roll that out and make much greater progress on it. I am glad he welcomes today’s announcement, which I will come to, but whether we are talking about British steel, British shipbuilding, wind farms or, as we saw in the Budget last week, driving innovation and spurring investment across the UK, we need to do far more to ensure that we buy British.
That is also why, just this week, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) said, we have announced measures to allow local authorities to reserve contracts for suppliers in their area. That will help to keep more than £1 billion of potential spend in local communities, and it will benefit small and local firms considerably. This flows from our decision earlier this year to publish a national procurement policy statement that required contracting authorities to consider wider objectives, such as creating local skills, jobs and opportunities, and to maximise procurement spend with small and medium-sized enterprises.
Over the summer, the Government consulted on a range of proposals to go further, including broadening the definition of national security to economic security, allowing greater support for critical UK industries, such as shipbuilding or steel, and plans to introduce a public interest test to support and help deliver a wave of insourcing. The proposals also included further expanding support and opportunities for SMEs, including tackling the scourge of late payments, and, to go to the thrust of the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West, reforming and tightening the definition of social value to see it delivered much more effectively.
We are working through the consultation responses. I have met with a number of businesses, unions and contracting authorities to discuss this further, and we are drawing up plans to bring forward legislation in the next session for a new procurement Bill to deliver these changes.
As the Minister responsible for procurement, I have two central goals. The first is to make the current procurement regime less bureaucratic and burdensome—streamlining the processes wherever possible, reducing unnecessary form-filling and, in particular, making it easier and fairer for SMEs. The second is to ensure that every pound of that £400 billion procurement budget is used to support British jobs, British industries and growth across the country. Within that second goal lies the question of social value, which my hon. Friend raised. I am sympathetic to a number of points he made, and I have discussed particularly with SMEs recently how we can do more in this space.
As my hon. Friend said, the social value model was introduced in 2019 and refreshed in 2025. It is not currently mandatory for all contracting authorities or contracts, and it is applicable only to central Government Departments, executive agencies and non-departmental bodies. As I said, we are consulting on changes that will open up procurement on social value grounds much more widely.
As my hon. Friend will know, the purpose of the social value model in the guidance, which has been in place for only a couple of months, is to ensure that contracting authorities can reward suppliers for more than simply best price, so that they can reflect quality jobs, support people into work and do training opportunities. For example, if we want to build a new road or a new infrastructure project, the contracting authority can consider more than price; it can consider what it does to help the community.
I agree with my hon. Friend that the definition of “community” needs to be improved and clarified. We need to be much clearer about community voice and view on this issue; again, I want to try to bring that forward in the legislation. It is early days to assess the impact of those measures, but I take on board the points that he raises regarding flaws in the process and the need to go further. As I said, that chimes with some of the points that he made.
I am particularly conscious that social value does not become just a tick-box exercise, particularly where large companies can employ more people and consultants and win contracts simply by being able to fill in a form better. That is absolutely not what social value is or should be, and it will absolutely not be what this Government allow to happen when we bring forward legislation in the next Session.
We also need to look at the threshold at which social value requirements apply so that we can ensure that SMEs and community groups have a much more level playing field and we can open up the requirement much more. Again, that will be a part of the consultation process.
My hon. Friend asks about the targeted recruitment and training approach for large contracts, and again he made some very good points. I agree that it needs to be a tool to provide local communities with the skills they need. At the moment, the social value model provides some flexibility for contracting authorities in that regard—for example, things such as skills gaps or local problems in the area—but we can do more. I will consider the points he raises and get back to him, and I thank him for those.
My hon. Friend also asks whether all vacancies for works contracts are on the DWP “Find a job” website, and the answer is yes. As of February 2025, there has been a requirement for all Government suppliers to advertise jobs relating to Government contracts in the local jobcentre. As I am sure he can recognise, the aim is to ensure that local people have every opportunity to access quality jobs, but again I will look at the points he makes about how that is playing out and if we can improve it.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned Northern Ireland and how we can do more to support procurement there. I am talking with the Northern Ireland Executive about how we can work together and try to ensure that new legislation that we bring forward in the next Session can apply in Northern Ireland, should they wish it to do so.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West for securing this important debate. Procurement is one of the most important levers we have in government, and we should have far more debates in this House on it. Procurement matters to Government, to taxpayers, to British business, to workers and to people across the country. The best way that we can support UK businesses further to deliver growth is to go further and faster on reforming public procurement. That is what this Government have already done, and that is what we will continue to do. We will deliver a simpler, less bureaucratic process, better value for taxpayers and more opportunities for local jobs and skills in all parts of the country, and we will bring that forward soon. I thank again my hon. Friend and other Members for contributing to the debate tonight.
Question put and agreed to.
Government Transparency and Accountability
Chris Ward Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)
I thank the hon. Member for bringing forward this debate. I know that she has raised these matters before a number of times in the House—
Chris Ward
I am listening. I am pleased that she has secured this debate. I could see her frustration throughout. I will come to her specific points shortly, but by way of introduction I will set out the Government’s position.
As the hon. Lady said, the Prime Minister made it clear that the Government are committed to restoring trust, accountability and transparency in politics, and to ensuring that those of us who have the enormous privilege of serving in public office are held to the highest standards. As the Prime Minister himself wrote in his foreword to the updated and strengthened ministerial code,
“Restoring trust in politics is the great test of our era. The British people have lost faith in its ability to change their lives for the better.”
It is worth remembering briefly why the Prime Minister felt it necessary to write those words and why trust in politics is at such a critical moment, as the hon. Lady said. Frankly, the events of the last Parliament cast a long shadow over this issue—particularly partygate, which resulted in a Prime Minister being fined for breaching laws that he introduced, and being found to have deliberately misled the House at this Dispatch Box. That is unprecedented, and it has proved deeply corrosive of public trust.
Those events were compounded by the former Prime Minister’s complete disregard for the role of the independent adviser on ministerial standards. Two independent ministerial advisers resigned because they lost faith in his upholding even basic standards. In contrast, I do not accept the hon. Lady’s assertion about how this Government are approaching the matter. This Prime Minister is determined to repair the breach in public trust and to rebuild it, and to ensure that government is once again in the service of working people.
Dr Johnson
I understand what the Minister is trying to say with his whataboutery, and his “Somebody else might have done it first,” but the point is that his Government are in government, and they are not delivering on their promises. The ministerial code already requires Ministers to be open and transparent, and to answer the questions, and they are not doing that. A tightened-up ministerial code will not be worth the paper it is written, given that the current one is not being adhered to.
Chris Ward
I will come to that, because enforcement of the code is one of the key points that I want to get to, along with how the Prime Minister is trying to address standards, and the problems that we experienced in the last Parliament. That is why he issued the updated, strengthened code, which includes the seven principles of public life—the Nolan principles that the hon. Lady referred to, and which this House debated just a few weeks ago. Those principles are front and centre of the new code, and make it clear that public service is a privilege that comes with responsibility.
Among the Nolan principles, first articulated some 30 years ago and highly relevant to today’s debate, is openness:
“Holders of public office should act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner.”
There is also accountability. Holders of public office should be accountable for their decisions, including in this place. Another of the principles is honesty:
“Holders of public office should be truthful.”
I know the Prime Minister well. I know that he cares deeply about those principles. It is why he has spent his life in public service, and he is determined that this Government will uphold them.
The ministerial code includes a strengthened role for the independent adviser on ministerial standards. That role is no longer sidelined; it is now central to assuring accountability. Crucially, the independent adviser can now initiate his own investigations without the Prime Minister’s permission, which is an important step forward. I am also proud that this Government introduced the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, or the Hillsborough law, which will establish a duty of candour across public bodies and help ensure accountability across all authorities.
This Government have delivered on a manifesto commitment to establish an ethics and integrity commission, which will help drive up progress on standards. The ministerial code also includes strengthened principles on the acceptance of gifts and hospitality by Government Ministers, an issue that the hon. Lady has raised in this House previously. The Cabinet Office has also published a revised and strengthened code on public appointments, which will make that process faster and more transparent.
Dr Johnson
Does the Minister understand that £130,000 for a part-time job is a damn sight more than most of my constituents—in fact, almost all of my constituents—are getting, and that if the Prime Minister has appointed somebody or signed off on someone’s appointment, having received money from the person he is appointing, the public will want to know how much that person and their businesses may have given him?
Chris Ward
I was going to come to that. The hon. Lady has raised that point before, including on Monday.
Chris Ward
I am going to, if she lets me. This is a matter for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport predominantly. The Culture Secretary made a statement to this House on the matter. All donations from Mr Kogan were made in line with the rules, and we are perfectly transparent on that. The Prime Minister asked the independent adviser to look at the matter, and at the Prime Minister’s role in it. Again, I contrast that with the behaviour of the last Government. The adviser was satisfied with the Prime Minister’s response, and said that the disclosures made by the Prime Minister were an important demonstration of the Prime Minister’s
“commitment to transparency and to ensuring that…necessary steps”
were taken to improve the process underlying standards in public life. Again, that is a contrast.
I also point out that the Prime Minister stands at this Dispatch Box every week at Prime Minister’s questions. Hon. Members have had ample opportunity to ask that question, and they have chosen not to do so. There was no moving away from this; the process has been transparent. Everything was published in line with the rules, and there is ample opportunity to question both the Prime Minister and the Culture Secretary about this. I hope that answers the hon. Lady’s point. Returning to other actions—
Chris Ward
I will make a little progress, if the hon. Lady does not mind.
The Government have taken action to improve openness and transparency, and we recognise the importance of accountability, particularly in this place. Ministers take their obligations seriously and, as I say, the Prime Minister and the independent adviser are committed to upholding both the spirit and letter of the code. That is why, during the Government’s first year in office, there were 190 oral statements across 168 sitting days—more than one per day. That is more than in the whole of the previous parliamentary Session. The Prime Minister has made nine statements to this House, including one earlier this week, and the Foreign Office has made 30 statements. As of this Monday, I am told that there have been 228 oral statements this Session—you will have been there for many of them, Madam Deputy Speaker—and over 1,000 written statements. I merely point that out to show that the Government do come to this House and make statements.
On parliamentary questions and letters, which the hon. Lady spoke about at length, I agree that it is important that Members get timely and helpful responses. Having been a Back-Bench MP asking these questions, I know how frustrating it is not to get timely and helpful responses. Clearly, she has raised some serious points about air ambulances and other issues. If it is okay with her, I will take those up with the relevant Departments and see what I can do to raise those points.
I gently point out that the number of parliamentary questions being submitted is at a record high. This summer, roughly three times as many parliamentary questions as usual were submitted, and one Member who I will not name has submitted over 1,000 questions. I am not saying that that is a reason for Ministers not to reply; they are replying. Civil servants and Ministers work hard, but there is a lot to get through, and we are working hard to on that.
Dr Johnson
Take the Department that has received the most questions this parliamentary Session, the Department of Health and Social Care. It has received 15,000 questions since 4 July 2024, which is 29 questions per day. It has five Ministers and a whole army of civil servants to answer those questions.
Chris Ward
That is true; the Department of Health and Social Care is the Department with the largest number of PQs submitted. It is taking action to improve its PQ performance, but it receives a huge number; PQs are at record numbers. I am just saying that there is not wilful avoidance; a lot of this is about the volume, and trying to get through the questions.
I will try to make some progress. The Government are also engaging in the ongoing parliamentary inquiry, requested by Mr Speaker, on ministerial statements and the ministerial code. The Government are determined to ensure that when we have public inquiries, they lead to meaningful change, accountability and justice. For example, we are carefully considering the latest report from the covid-19 inquiry, and will respond fully in due course. To further drive accountability and implementation, the Government have launched a publicly accessible list on gov.uk of all recommendations made by inquiries, and the progress that the Government are making in response.
As I said, the Government do take transparency and accountability extremely seriously. We are, as with so many other things—from the economy to prisons and the immigration system—having to rebuild faith and trust in our politics from the very low base that we inherited. The hon. Lady made some good points about responses to PQs and letters, on which I will follow up, but the Government are making progress and are committed to going further. I welcome the debate, and the opportunity to discuss this tonight.
Question put and agreed to.
Cabinet Office
Chris Ward Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Ward
… the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee have both looked at this recently and published reports on how to improve whistleblowing in the civil service, but neither of them recommended creating an independent body due to the risk of duplication. The Government agree with that, but I do hope that he will work with us—I am sure that he will—during the passage of the Hillsborough law to try to ensure that it delivers the candour, justice, accountability and safety that whistleblowers need.
[Official Report, 12 November 2025; Vol. 775, c. 285.]
Written correction submitted by the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven (Chris Ward):
Chris Ward
… the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee have both looked at this recently and published reports on how to improve whistleblowing in the civil service, but neither of them recommended creating an independent body. Doing so would risk duplication, but I do hope that he will work with us—I am sure that he will—during the passage of the Hillsborough law to try to ensure that it delivers the candour, justice, accountability and safety that whistleblowers need.
Draft Procurement Act 2023 (Specified International Agreements and Saving Provision) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
Chris Ward Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Procurement Act 2023 (Specified International Agreements and Saving Provision) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. The purpose of the statutory instrument is simple: to implement the procurement chapter of the UK-Iraq partnership and co-operation agreement and the UK-Kazakhstan strategic partnership and co-operation agreement. Both agreements are part of the UK’s ongoing continuity trade programme following our exit from the EU.
As the Committee will know, the UK’s trade continuity programme aimed to replicate existing EU trade agreements where possible after the UK left the EU. The goal was to ensure businesses, consumers and investors maintained stability and access to benefits such as preferential tariffs. The UK-Iraq PCA and the UK-Kazakhstan SPCA are two of the last remaining trade agreements to be updated, and the SI implements the procurement chapters of them.
Before I cover the procurement chapter commitments in some detail, I want to provide the House with more background on the two agreements. The UK-Iraq PCA and the UK-Kazakhstan SPCA establish frameworks to govern our trade and economic relationship with Iraq and Kazakhstan. They will strengthen our co-operation across a range of priority areas and signal our commitment to two strategically important partners.
The UK-Iraq PCA was signed during Prime Minister al-Sudani’s visit to the UK in January this year. During that visit, both Prime Ministers announced a trade package worth over £12 billion. That package, when fully delivered, will represent a tenfold increase compared with our current annual trade. The UK has therefore started a new chapter in our relationship with Iraq, and the PCA will deepen our bilateral relationship across a wide range of sectors including, but not limited to: energy, transport, scientific research, education and culture, as well as counter-terrorism and arms controls.
The UK-Kazakhstan SPCA, which was signed in April 2024 by the previous Government, provides a framework for political dialogue and deeper co-operation on trade, security, climate, education and culture. The agreement goes further than existing World Trade Organisation arrangements on the provision of services, creating more favourable conditions on the establishment of cross-border supply. It also exceeds Kazakhstan’s current WTO commitments on global procurement, aligning them to the WTO Government procurement agreement, to which Kazakhstan is currently in the process of acceding.
The treaty is a substantial indication of the UK’s commitment to strategic political and economic co-operation with Kazakhstan, and it confirms our long-standing shared interests. UK businesses have traded with Kazakhstan since its independence in 1991 in areas such as minerals, education and architecture. The agreement will deepen those links. The text of the SPCA also makes important and specific references to bilateral dialogue on human rights, labour relations and gender equality.
It is important to note that the procurement chapters of the agreements broadly replicate the standards and market access commitments of the original EU agreements before our exit from the EU. Some of the language has been tweaked to better reflect the specific bilateral context between the UK and the two countries today. A key distinction between the Iraqi and Kazakh agreements is that the procurement market access commitments in the SPCA can considered broadly equivalent to that of the WTO GPA. However, the market access levels in the Iraq PCA are lower than that as they only include access to central Government entities.
As part of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act process to enable parliamentary scrutiny, both agreements were laid in Parliament on 9 July. The agreements cleared the CRaG scrutiny process on 16 October, and this SI was subsequently laid on 21 October. The procurement chapters of the agreements can only take effect once the agreements have implemented in domestic legislation. The SI will achieve that by updating schedule 9 to the Procurement Act 2023 to implement in domestic law the UK’s procurement obligations under both agreements. Through the addition of the agreements to schedule 9, suppliers entitled to benefit from them will be considered “treaty state suppliers” under section 89 of the Procurement Act. That will provide them with access and rights in UK public procurement equal to that afforded to UK suppliers. In turn, the agreements require Iraq and Kazakhstan to provide equivalent access for UK suppliers. The Procurement Act regulations are being amended to ensure that the UK’s obligations under both agreements apply in relation to contracts that can still be entered into under the previous procurement regime.
The territorial extent of this instrument is UK wide. The territorial application of the instrument in relation to contracts under the Procurement Act extends to England and Northern Ireland. The same extends to Scotland, but not in respect of procurement carried out by a devolved Scottish authority. The same extends to Wales, but not in respect of procurement regulated by Welsh Ministers. Therefore, the Welsh Government will make a separate SI to implement the agreements in respect of procurements regulated by Welsh Ministers, and the Scottish Government will implement the agreements separately, under their own legislation, in respect of procurement carried out by a devolved Scottish authority. The territorial application of this instrument in relation to contracts under the previous procurement regime extends to England and Wales and Northern Ireland.
I hope that hon. Members will join me in supporting the statutory instrument, which helps to update and strengthen our relationship with both Iraq and Kazakhstan.
Chris Ward
I was rather expecting some further contributions, but there we go—I can see what the time is. I welcome the continuing cross-party support on this matter across the Committee. As the hon. Gentleman said, much of this work—particularly on the Kazakhstan agreement—was started under the previous Government.
The hon. Gentleman raised a couple of points. We do not expect there to be a material policy change. As I said, the regulations replicate much of where we were pre-EU exit. There are some technical tweaks, but, to his point, there is no material change. On additional burdens on business, which he also mentioned, we do not expect there to be a significant impact from the regulations because the underpinning framework is not being substantially amended; these really are technical changes.
On SMEs, as I said, we do not expect huge changes, but once the regulations are agreed to formally by the House, updated guidance will be published to inform SMEs, affected people and suppliers looking to trade into Kazakhstan and Iraq and vice versa. More broadly, the Government have a big programme of work to try to improve support for SMEs in the procurement regime. Some really important progress was made on that in the Procurement Act—there is cross-party agreement here—but we are looking to go much further and ensure that the public procurement budget of almost £400 billion a year does everything it can to support SMEs. We will look to do that going forward, but we do not expect there to be material change from the regulations. I think that covers all the hon. Gentleman’s points.
The implementation of the regulations will be a key step in formalising our relationship with both countries, with mutual benefits on both sides. We are committed to enhancing our relationship with Kazakhstan and with Iraq. I hope that colleagues will join me in supporting the regulations, which I commend to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Cabinet Office
Chris Ward Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for giving way; it is much appreciated. Just briefly, those standards are very much welcomed, particularly in my constituency. Does he agree that they must be applied at parish and town council level too? We want expectations aligned across all public services.
Chris Ward
My hon. Friend raises a very good point, although I should remind him that I think parish councils are about to be abolished in the local government reorganisation so we might have to look at that, but I take his point, which is a fair one.
[Official Report, 12 November 2025; Vol. 775, c. 286.]
Written correction submitted by the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven (Chris Ward):
Nolan Principles
Chris Ward Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)
I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) for securing the debate. He said it would not be pain free, and he was true to his word, but I know he cares passionately about these matters. Whether it is the Hillsborough law, the Kincora children’s scandal—he has campaigned on that for many years—or other injustices, I know he cares deeply about our public services and the Nolan principles underpinning them, so I will take this in that spirit.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
It was fantastic to see the consensus in this House in relation to the Hillsborough law. Does the Minister share my concern that the Scottish Government have yet to confirm whether they will match the non-means-tested legal aid that is written into the Bill, as passed on Second Reading last week, across the rest of the United Kingdom?
Chris Ward
As I understand it, the Scottish Government have had a number of years to address that, and they still have not done so, so I hope the First Minister will get to that and we can clarify it.
We are celebrating 30 years of the Nolan principles this year, and the principles set out by Lord Nolan in 1995—honesty, integrity, accountability, selflessness, objectivity, openness and leadership—are rightly the foundations of standards in public life across the United Kingdom. As the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East said, with public trust in our public services and our politics at a low point, they are as important, if not more, as they have been at any point in the last three decades.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
The Minister talks about public trust, and one way to try to restore that trust is to hold accountable every single breach of the Nolan principles in this and every other place obligated to follow them. The public do not see that accountability in action, so would he agree with me that the new Government can do more to hold Members accountable for breaches?
Chris Ward
I will come to accountability later, but I do agree that there is more that can be done on accountability. I would argue that this Government are making some progress on that, but I do agree, and I will come on to that later.
I want to assure the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East and the House that the Government are committed to strengthening and upholding the Nolan principles. Indeed, just last week the Prime Minister reiterated at this Dispatch Box that those principles
“are not some kind of optional extra, but the very essence of public service itself.”—[Official Report, 3 November 2025; Vol. 774, c. 658.]
It is worth reminding the House that the Nolan principles do not just apply to politicians; they apply to all public servants, elected or not, in local and national Government, as well as the civil service, the police and those in health, education, social care and other services. They also apply to those in the private and voluntary sector who deliver services paid for by the taxpayer. I do want to emphasise that the overwhelming majority of public servants seek to uphold these principles, and live and breathe them every day. In my opinion, we are too quick to point out those who fail and too reticent to point out those who live them every day.
However, it is true that in recent years, as has been mentioned, public trust in our politics and our public service more broadly has been eroded. Indeed, it was in response to the events of the last Parliament—partygate, the complete sidelining of the independent adviser and the abuse of public contracts during covid—that this Prime Minister outlined a number of steps to strengthen the ministerial code and to try to breathe new life into the Nolan principles.
That is why the Prime Minister put the Nolan principles up front in a strengthened ministerial code, rather than as an afterthought or as an annexe. It is why the Prime Minister has empowered the independent ethics adviser to launch his own inquiries without prime ministerial approval, which I think we can all agree is a welcome change from the last Government. It is also why the Hillsborough law, for which we have all waited so long and which I know Members across the House support, will ensure that every public authority has a legal requirement to adopt a code of ethical conduct based on the Nolan principles. I know that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East will agree that this is an important step forward, and I hope it can be a catalyst to drive improvements across the public sector based around the Nolan principles.
I know the hon. Member called today, as he has done previously, for an office of the whistleblower. I do understand why, and I know how strongly he feels about it. As he will know, the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee have both looked at this recently and published reports on how to improve whistleblowing in the civil service, but neither of them recommended creating an independent body due to the risk of duplication. The Government agree with that, but I do hope that he will work with us—I am sure that he will—during the passage of the Hillsborough law to try to ensure that it delivers the candour, justice, accountability and safety that whistleblowers need.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
It is absolutely apparent from looking at the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, which is known as the Hillsborough law, that it will create enormous pressure on any number of bodies, particularly the employment tribunal, which I understand has tens of thousands of cases waiting. I could list any number of others, but I shall not do so now. I hope I will have an opportunity to explain that in my planned meeting with the Minister, but it is crucial that people have someone independent to go to so that they do not end up in the employment tribunal, where they will be roundly trashed and lose not only their reputation, but their way of earning a living.
Chris Ward
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I agree. That is why we need to get the measures in the Bill right, and why I hope that she and other colleagues will work with us in Committee and as the Bill progresses.
I respect the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East a lot, but I simply do not accept the general depiction he gave of the Government and the lack of progress made. I remind him that we have delivered on a manifesto commitment to establish the Ethics and Integrity Commission, which will promote the seven principles and report annually on improving standards. We have closed ACOBA—the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments—and reformed the outdated business appointments system. The ministerial severance system has also been reformed to save the taxpayer money and to end the scandal we saw under the previous Government, where Ministers got large amounts of public money after either being removed from their position or returning very quickly. And just this week my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government announced strong new powers to improve standards and accountability across local government.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for giving way; it is much appreciated. Just briefly, those standards are very much welcomed, particularly in my constituency. Does he agree that they must be applied at parish and town council level too? We want expectations aligned across all public services.
Chris Ward
My hon. Friend raises a very good point, although I should remind him that I think parish councils are about to be abolished in the local government reorganisation so we might have to look at that, but I take his point, which is a fair one.
The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East mentioned a number of recent cases where, to put it politely, he suggests the Nolan principles may not have been abided by. I will, of course, not comment on the specifics of all of those, or indeed those where the Scottish Government may not have always abided by the principles, but I will say that the Prime Minister has made clear how seriously he takes Ministers abiding by the code. It is why he invited the independent ethics adviser—the independent adviser on ministerial standards —to address Cabinet on the first day after the election and why he has stuck ever since to a very powerful role for that position, which I think we can agree is a step forward.
The final thing I want to say is that I have heard the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East say before that he believes that
“our leaders…cannot be trusted to do the right thing unless they are legally required to do so.”—[Official Report, 3 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 123WH.]
After recent years, and perhaps even recent weeks, I understand his scepticism, but I do not accept his fatalism. I believe that the vast majority of our public servants and our leaders are trustworthy. I believe that every day they seek to show leadership with honesty, integrity, accountability, selflessness, objectivity and openness. But where public servants fail to meet those standards, there must be clear and effective accountability.
Iqbal Mohamed
I thank the Minister for giving way. One area that I do not believe is fully covered and needs to be expanded on is racism and discrimination. It is not clear which one of the seven principles covers that. Normally it would breach all of them, but I gently request that the Government look at how we can hold Members of this House and those in office accountable for language used that is definitely racist.
Chris Ward
The hon. Gentleman raises a really important point, particularly for Members of this House, but also across public services more broadly. We have seen some very worrying reports of that recently in our core public services. If it is okay with him, I will discuss it with my colleagues in the Government Equalities Office to see what we can do and write back to him. He raises a good point.
As I was saying, I do not accept the fatalism set out by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East, but where there are failings and public servants do not meet high standards, there needs to be swift and effective accountability. It is, of course, the responsibility of this Government and these Ministers—indeed all Governments, politicians and public servants—to strive to reflect what Lord Nolan set out 30 years ago. As I have said, the Government are taking steps to achieve that. I am the first to accept that we are not there yet, but we are making progress.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
At the end of August in Nottinghamshire, where I am a Member of Parliament, the leader of the county council banned the Nottingham Post and Nottinghamshire Live from speaking to him and his local authority, representing a dangerous moment where local accountability was not being adequately recognised. Will the Minister speak to his colleagues about how we can bolster local journalism and the role it plays in the accountability part of the Nolan principles?
Chris Ward
Absolutely. On local government, I will just reiterate that the Housing, Communities and Local Government Secretary set out important powers earlier in the week to try to improve standards and to hold people to account. Hopefully that will help.
Seamus Logan
I thank the Minister for allowing me to make a short intervention. I appreciate the number of times he has referenced the points I made in my speech. Can he advise us in this place what the Government can do about peers in the other place who fall below the standards that we and the public have come to expect?
Chris Ward
That is a matter for individual parties and for the Lords to look at. I will come back to the hon. Gentleman on this question, because House of Lords reform is another area that the Cabinet Office is overseeing. I do agree, with regard to recent cases in particular—across the House, I should say—that there is a need to improve trust and accountability. The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill, which we intend to take through Parliament, is part of trying to modernise and improve the House of Lords. I think it would be a big step forward if we could pass that Bill. I will come back to the hon. Gentleman on his broader point, if that is okay.
Finally, as I have said, the Government are taking steps to breathe new life into the Nolan principles. We are not there yet but will keep working on it. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East for securing this debate.
Question put and agreed to.