Elections Bill

Fleur Anderson Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 7th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to close this debate on behalf of the Opposition, and I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare), for Norwich South (Clive Lewis), for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter), for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) and for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) for their contributions. I congratulate the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) on her excellent maiden speech, really bringing her constituency to us—I feel that we lived part of her beautiful constituency—and I am sure she will be standing up for her constituents in the years ahead.

Labour will be voting against this legislation today. My colleagues on the Labour Benches behind me have laid out in clear terms the dangerous consequences of this legislation. This legislation is unnecessary and expensive, costing £120 million over the next 10 years—at least. It will have a chilling effect on democracy and it is an attack on free and fair campaigning. This legislation will see legitimate voters turned away from polling stations and local councils tied up in mountains of red tape and expense. It is a shameless attempt by the Government to rewrite the rules and rig democracy in favour of the Conservative party.

If passed, this legislation will reverse decades of democratic progress in the UK. The Government have not been honest with us here today or with the British public about the true intention of this Elections Bill. It has been presented as a quick-fix solution to polish up our democracy and introduce integrity into our system, but the truth is that our democracy does not have an issue with integrity; it is the Conservative Government who have the issue with integrity.

This Bill will disenfranchise millions of voters, and we all know that the Tories do better in elections the lower the turnout. It is time to be honest about what this Bill will mean in practice. This Bill will make it harder for working-class people, older people and people with disabilities, as well as black, Asian and minority ethnic people and people with learning disabilities to vote. If Government Members do not agree, will the Minister commit to an equalities impact assessment to work out whether this will be true? There are concerns from so many groups representing those people saying that it will disenfranchise those groups of people.

The voter ID proposals are simply not proportionate to the risk of voter fraud. The Electoral Commission’s own advice, following the pilot schemes in 2018 and 2019, is that

“we are not able to draw definitive conclusions, from these pilots, about how an ID requirement would work in practice”—

how will it work?—

“particularly at a national poll with higher levels of turnout or in areas with different socio-demographic profiles not fully represented in the pilot scheme.”

It very clearly concluded that the significant staffing and financial impact was disproportionate to the security risk of voter fraud. In the pilot, more than 1,000 people were denied a vote because of a lack of ID—1,000 people. Even if one person lacked their ID to vote, that should be a reason to rethink this Bill entirely.

Local by-elections took place across Great Britain between January and March 2020 and there were eight Scottish council by-elections in the autumn of 2020, and there are just three cases of voter fraud under investigation. This is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut and risks disenfranchising the 3.5 million people who do not have a photo ID for the sake of a tiny handful of fraud allegations. In 2019, there was a record turnout of 59 million votes, as many Members have said, but just one conviction for personation. Someone is more likely to be struck by lightning three times than to be convicted of voter personation, so why put in place this Bill?

[Alberto Costa]

I have sat here patiently and listened to the hon. Lady’s comments. I must confess I am not sure what Bill she is referring to. She is making a litany of allegations which are beyond surreal, if there is such a phrase. Can she please explain clearly why she thinks the people of Britain, who are astounded that there is not some form of proper voter ID, should not be given that security and certainty when going to the electoral vote?

[Fleur Anderson]

We do not have a national ID card and this image of people bursting out trying to get to the polling station at all costs is not the experience. It is hard to encourage people to vote. It is hard to encourage the most marginalised groups to go out and vote. They are the groups that will lose out the most from this. They find it hard to go out and get an ID. They will be the ones who will be turned away, who will not remember to bring the ID, who will not be able to bring it. All the rules on how to get this free photo ID are not clear: how will they go down to their town hall, what will they have to prove? There is barrier after barrier for the most disenfranchised people, as has been raised by many Members.

My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead raised the issue of the barrier for young people and older people. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South spoke of the disenfranchisement of those hit hardest by the Government’s policies. My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley raised the concerns of 19 Welsh organisations—surely Conservative Members cannot just disregard those disadvantaged groups. She also raised the amazing work of the Welsh Government to make voting easier, while this Government will be making voting more difficult.

My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South raised the disproportionate outcome of these measures. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) raised the important issue of the glaring omission of student ID cards from the list of IDs. My hon. Friends the Members for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) and for Swansea West made passionate interventions about deeply concerning issues of voter suppression that is in keeping with the US Republican party. We cannot be deluded by Ministers into thinking the voter ID laws we are debating today are any different from the dangerous laws passed by the Republican party. The parallels we have drawn and the similarities are worth serious investigation. American civil rights groups have been fighting for years to combat restrictive voter suppression laws, particularly those affecting ethnic minority communities.

It has been asked, who opposes these measures? Leading civil rights groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the Southern Poverty Law Center came together to warn the UK Government that UK Government voter ID policies will harm democracy. Did this make the Minister think twice about that policy? When Age UK said that compulsory photo ID will make 4% of over-70s—that is equivalent to 360,000 people—less likely to vote, did the Minister reconsider that policy? When Lord Woolley of Woodford, director of Operation Black Vote, said in evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights that

“tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, might be impeded by this imposition, clearly it is not proportionate and could actually have a monstrous negative effect”

did this make the Minister reconsider her policy? And when the Royal National Institute of Blind People raised serious concerns about the impact of these measures on blind people, did that make the Minister rethink the policy?

On the provisions on joint campaigning, these clauses are an attack on freedom of speech and association and undermine the independence of trade unions, charities and advocacy organisations. I was working for a charity when the gagging law came into place and saw the chilling effect on democracy. These measures are completely unnecessary. They risk tying up organisations in red tape and risk effectively gagging charities and pressure groups, who are a vital voice for marginalised people in our elections, but they will err on the side of caution for fear of falling foul of this law. That will have a chilling effect on our democracy with far-reaching impacts.

These measures are illogical. Political parties and non-party campaigners are different; they have vastly different expenditures at election time. It is unfair to apply these regulations jointly to such different organisations. The measures also breach key principles set out by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, as has been raised by Members.

Trade unions represent millions of working people, but the Government have shown in this Bill a commitment to cut those people out of our democracy. On foreign donations, the Bill is another example of the Conservatives bending the rules to benefit themselves. That is a wholly unnecessary change that weakens our electoral integrity.

If the Conservatives were serious about improving democratic engagement, they would extend the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds, as well as concentrating efforts on registering the millions of adults in this country not currently on the electoral roll, starting with automatic registration. If they were serious, they would increase transparency and avoid opaque practices such as the use of private emails for Government business. They would be building pathways to voting, not putting up barriers.

This Bill is not necessary and not proportionate. It is a waste of taxpayers’ money that creates more problems than it solves. It reverses decades of democratic progress and needs to be completely overhauled.

International Aid: Treasury Update

Fleur Anderson Excerpts

Programme motion
Tuesday 13th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this important debate. I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

The choice that we face today is clear: are we global Britain or little Britain? This is a trap for the unwary. In fact, it goes further than that. This is a deliberate cut in aid, which the Conservative party has been wanting to do for a long time. I share the concern of many Government Members who do not want to be seen as the nasty party. We are the only G7 country to be cutting our aid, so it simply does not have to be done. We do not have to shrug our shoulders and say, “We are in the middle of a pandemic. This is another cost of covid. We just have to get on and do this”. No, this is a deliberate choice about what we do to retain our promises to the world’s poorest people at a time when we are all suffering around the world together. This is not only about how much we are cutting, but how the cuts are being made: not very strategically; very fast for many of the smallest projects which have the best outcomes; and without any impact assessment being done. The figure of 0.7% is not some arbitrary number dreamt up by a Treasury civil servant.

One of the most memorable days of my life was standing on a stage in Edinburgh, introducing Eddie Izzard to a massive crowd of people. Why am I bringing that up now? It is because it was a Make Poverty History rally. People had got up the night before and travelled overnight in coaches from communities across the whole country. They were of all ages and all backgrounds, and had one mission: to make poverty history and see the 0.7% prescribed in law. That happened many years after; there were many years of campaigning that brought the 0.7% into reality. It is not something that we can lose so easily. I share the concerns of many Members that if we lose it today, it will be many years—if ever—until we see the return to 0.7%, which the British public want.

People from across my constituency have written to me saying that they do not agree with the aid cuts. It is a small amount in the whole scale of Government spending—just 1% of our borrowing—and it is very good value for money. It is a false economy and it is wrong to cut the South Sudanese peace project, which has been built up over many years and is based in trust. This cut will result in devastating results in South Sudan. It has been called a “crushing blow” to the people of South Sudan. Today is an opportunity to restore the cross-party agreement on aid, to restore our ambition and our own influential place in the world, to do the right thing and to vote against these cuts.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call Catherine West—[Interruption.] We do not seem to have any audio, so let us go to Tobias Ellwood and come back to Catherine West.

Election Campaign Finances: Regulation

Fleur Anderson Excerpts

Thursday 8th July 2021 Westminster Hall

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Paisley. It is a pleasure to respond to this debate on behalf of the Labour party, and to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock). I congratulate the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) on securing the debate and on his thoughtful remarks, which in places were worrying. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) for his important comments on the prevalence of dark money and dirty data, the complacency with which this issue has been treated up to now, the shortcomings of the Electoral Commission, and his recommendations on transparency, deterrence and monitoring.

Members can certainly agree that the laws that govern our elections are complex, fragmented and confusing. We need the highest possible standards for electoral finances—free, fair and corruption-free—with strong regulation to guard the integrity of our democracy and to guard against the influence of foreign state and non-state actors and all threats to our democracy, both at home and abroad. It is widely accepted that our electoral laws are not fit for the modern age, with many written before the creation of the internet. Such an archaic system has left huge loopholes in the way our elections are regulated. The Law Commission’s report back in 2016 made a series of constructive recommendations about electoral law, but the Conservative Government have failed to take any action before now.

The fact is that, over the past decade, the Conservatives have failed to take any action to modernise our electoral laws or close the loopholes that allow foreign money to flood into our democracy. The reason is clear. The archaic laws benefit the Conservative party, allowing wealthy foreign donors who have never paid tax in the UK to bankroll their campaigns. Instead of closing these loopholes, the Government’s Elections Bill announced this week will further weaken our donation laws, allowing rich Conservative expats unlimited access to our democracy and opening the floodgates to foreign money coming into our politics, at our peril.

It is disappointing that the Government have chosen to pre-empt the Committee on Standards in Public Life report with the Bill, which represents a step back in our democratic process. Indeed, as Dr Jess Garland at the Electoral Reform Society pointed out:

“The Elections Bill not only fails to take into account the comprehensive recommendations of the Committee, but continues to leave many of the most troubling loopholes in our election laws wide open.”

Many of those loopholes have been listed by previous speakers today.

Labour welcomes the “Regulating Election Finance” report published yesterday by the Committee on Standards in Public Life. We certainly need this Committee more than ever. The report suggests practical steps to modernise and streamline the way donations are made. The report lays bare the damage that years of inaction by the Government has caused, undermining transparency in our democracy. A key issue at the heart of the report is the role of the independent elections watchdog, the Electoral Commission. Labour is clear that an independent watchdog is paramount in having proper accountability in our democracy. The Committee on Standards in Public Life’s report overwhelmingly supports that view, recognising that an independent electoral watchdog is the cornerstone of any democracy.

I am sure that Members of the Committee were deeply concerned by the recent comments by the Conservative party co-chair, the right hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling), calling for the regulator to be abolished or radically overhauled, removing all independent oversight in the conduct of our elections. The regulator needs to be stronger, not weaker. Such action would be hugely harmful and a worrying step for the integrity of our democracy, and one that Labour will continue to strongly oppose.

This week’s Elections Bill contains numerous worrying provisions that weaken and politicise the Electoral Commission, enabling the Tories to dictate the priorities and agenda of an independent watchdog. I hope that the Minister will respond to the concerns raised by the Committee’s report regarding the unbalanced membership of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, which for the first time, as has been mentioned, has a majority of members from the governing party. I share the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon about that. Can the Minister, who I welcome to her place, confirm that she agrees with the Committee that

“independence can be ensured only if cross-party consensus is maintained”?

The report also highlights the weaknesses in laws governing online space, which allow foreign money and untraceable advertisements to threaten our elections and the security of democracy in the UK. In my own election, I was faced with advertisements placed by an opponent who claimed she was a Nobel prize winner; that was not true, but it was hard to counter these advertisements, We need rules that ensure that the data that is used and put out can be retracted and changed, and the record can be put straight during the election, not afterwards when it is too late.

I hope the Minister will take on board the Committee on Standards in Public Life’s recommendations to tighten the requirements to identify the true source of donations. The public deserve and need to know how money is being spent and where that money comes from. It is their vote, after all.

Labour is clear that the Government could prioritise many of these changes right now, well in advance of any election. This is urgent. What is more, the Government have a clear opportunity to use the Elections Bill to introduce the measures. Instead, we have Tory Government who are scaremongering over voter fraud and pursuing dangerous voter ID policies, instead of working to genuinely increase the transparency and accessibility of our democracy. Indeed, I note that the Bill is no longer called the electoral integrity Bill. Can the Minister explain why the name was changed? Could it be because the Bill has nothing to do with integrity and everything to do with voter repression? I look forward to hearing the answer.

If the Government really want to improve the integrity of our elections, they should consider the findings of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, strengthen the regulation, close the loopholes and stop using parliamentary time to weaken the pillars of our democracy.

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

Before I call the Minister, I should say that in the course of this debate a number of wide-ranging and wild allegations were made by some Members, without any reference to evidence. I took advice in the course of the debate to ensure that no allegation of impropriety was made against individual Members of the House and that no new crimes were alleged to have been committed. I am glad to say that all of this debate fell within fair public comment. I think it is important to say that, because of the importance of some of the things that have been said in the course of the debate.

It is a pleasure to call the Minister. Like others, I am delighted to see her back in her place.

Oral Answers to Questions

Fleur Anderson Excerpts

Thursday 8th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Julia Lopez]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I appreciate your comments on language in this House. I am afraid I disagree with the hon. Member’s characterisation of this Government. As the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has already set out, there is a nuanced judgment from the Public First case in particular which does not agree with the way the hon. Member has characterised how the Government conduct themselves.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

It would appear that my lack of donations to the Conservative party makes my chances of becoming a Government non-executive director rather slim, but my question to the Minister today is this: how many non-executive directors currently in post on those Government Department boards to scrutinise Ministers were appointed by Ministers? Will the Minister commit to overhauling that current system for appointing non-executive directors, so that these roles stop just being cushy jobs for friends of Ministers who are being paid over £1,000 a day each of taxpayers’ money?

[Julia Lopez]

I can speak for the Cabinet Office non-executive directors. We have a fantastic team that is drawn from across party political affiliations. She will be aware that we have Baroness Stuart, who is a former Labour Member. We also have people with no political affiliation whatever, including people such as Anand Aithal. We have Henry de Zoete, and we have Lord Hogan-Howe, who is a former Metropolitan Police Commissioner. They were appointed because of their merit, not because of their party political affiliation.

[Fleur Anderson]

I think that made my point for me, thank you.

Last month, an Information Tribunal said that there is

“a profound lack of transparency about the operation”

of the freedom of information clearing house. Can the Minister confirm categorically that every single freedom of information request received has been treated in exactly the same way, with no different approach for certain journalists or campaigners?

[Julia Lopez]

I can confirm that we treat those information requests on a case-by-case basis, and the background of who is asking is not a criterion for how we treat that request.

Armed Forces Bill

Fleur Anderson Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 23rd June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)]

I pay tribute to the men and women who serve our nation in uniform and our veterans who have selflessly sacrificed so much to protect this great nation. They deserve our utmost respect, gratitude and thanks. I also give thanks to the armed forces and veterans breakfast club in Bury where people work to help veterans, their families and service personnel, bringing the entire community together and reducing social isolation. They meet throughout the week. This should be commended and I put my thanks on record today.

I warmly welcome this Bill. I have the utmost confidence that it will ensure that veterans are treated fairly when accessing key public services, as well as improving the service justice system. As chairman of the all-party group on alcohol harm, I make particular reference to new clause 6 with regard to alcohol disorders. Although I appreciate the reasons that the Government are not bringing forward a measure at the moment, it needs to be explored further so that we do our utmost to ensure that anyone who has a disorder, a dependency or a need—whether they are a recent recruit, still serving or a recent veteran—can be given the help they need throughout their life.

In particular, the Bill will enshrine the armed forces covenant into law, increasing awareness among public bodies of the unique nature of military service and improving the level of service for members of the armed forces community in regard to their healthcare, housing and education. I imagine that every Member of this House is aware of veterans out there who have been unable to access help and services that they desperately need, so I warmly welcome the covenant being enshrined in law.

However, our veterans deserve more than the appreciation of a grateful nation. They have protected and built our country, and they deserve our tireless commitment to advancing their opportunities. We must build a brighter future worthy of their sacrifice and that of their families. That is why I welcome the funding announced in the Budget by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in support of veterans welfare. An additional £10 million will be invested in the armed forces covenant fund in 2021-22, which will deliver charitable projects and initiatives to support veterans’ mental health. This latest funding is in addition to the annual Government contribution of £10 million to the covenant fund.

I welcome the funding announcement, but the veterans community in Bury needs more support. There is currently very little provided for them. Since my election to this House, I have been working with other leaders in the borough, with the council and with my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly), to try to bring our own veterans hub to the town of Bury. We are proud of our military heritage; we are a regimental town, looking after the Lancashire Fusiliers. The veterans hub would seek to deliver housing and employment skills, further education, family support and health and wellbeing.

I have visited numerous veterans hub operations across the surrounding areas, and I pay tribute to the services in Wigan and also in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Antony Higginbotham). The positive impact that a local veterans hub can have is clear to everyone. Can the Minister tell me what we can do to ensure that veterans receive the support that they need, no matter where they live, and what funding would be available from the MOD to help set up a veterans hub locally in Bury? We must reaffirm our fundamental promise that, just as the military leaves no one behind on the battlefield, we will leave no veteran behind when they come home.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford) and an honour to speak in this debate in Armed Forces Week and on Reserves Day, especially because I am proud to have the Royal Marine Reserve headquarters in my constituency. Ahead of Reserves Day, I visited them last week and was able to thank them personally for their service. They put in a hard day’s work all over the country, then travel to their reservist centre to train for the Royal Marines, no less. They offer amazing service to our country, and I am very proud of them and grateful to them.

There is much to welcome in the Bill, which will support our armed forces personnel and their families. I echo the words of colleagues on both sides of the House in recognising and celebrating the work of our armed forces and their ongoing efforts to make our country and the world safer. We cannot put a price on safety. Only when our own safety is compromised, or when we do not have it, do we realise how important it is to us every day. I worked with aid workers in Bosnia during the war, and I have seen the difference it can make to a whole community not to have that safety, so I value it very much.

Our armed forces have had to adapt all their work and all their training at speed during the pandemic, and I commend them for that. I am also thankful for the work they have done to support frontline efforts to tackle the pandemic. They really have stepped up when we have asked them to. It is for this reason that, while I support the aims of the Bill, I think it is a huge missed opportunity and could have gone further. It needs to go further if it is to deliver real improvements to the day-to-day lives of our service personnel and veterans and their families.

[Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

As a fellow member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill could have gone further in addressing mental health provision for veterans, given the fact that they have to wait 37 days to receive a face-to-face appointment for mental health services, compared with the Government’s own target of just 14 days?

[Fleur Anderson]

I agree with my hon. Friend: this Bill could have gone further both in putting all aspects of the covenant fully into law, and in its scope.

The Bill does not fully enshrine the armed forces covenant in law. It seems to absolve central Government from responsibility for delivering the covenant, as has been outlined by my colleagues. It does not make sense to place new responsibilities on a wide range of public bodies, from school governors to local authorities, to deliver the covenant, but not to include central Government. Does the Minister agree that the Government are effectively outsourcing the delivery of these important commitments and also evading their own responsibility on issues such as pensions, social care and mental health services? For that reason, I support amendments 1 to 4. They would place the same legal responsibility to have due regard to the armed forces covenant on central Government and the devolved Administrations and remove that glaring discrepancy.

My second point is that the Bill is just too narrow. Service charities are rightly concerned that this Bill contains nothing specific on issues such as service accommodation, employment, pensions, compensation, social care, criminal justice and immigration. The scope of the legislation must be wide enough to ensure that all areas of potential disadvantage are addressed. Our armed forces personnel and their families should not suffer disadvantage in any area. By setting a legal standard that is below existing voluntary commitments in some areas, the Government risk creating a two-tier covenant and a race to the bottom on services for forces’ communities where we should be providing the gold standard.

The Bill, as it stands, does not cover all the commitments made in the covenant, or all the public bodies responsible for delivering them It contains powers for the Secretary of State to expand these, so why not include them? Will the Minister clarify how and when these powers might be used? These issues are why I am supporting amendment 6 this afternoon.

This Bill does nothing to address the shameful scandal of visa fees for Commonwealth veterans. I know that there is support in all parts of the House for addressing this, so I urge Members to vote for the new clause. The Government’s long-awaited proposals, currently being consulted on, will help just one in 10 Commonwealth veterans. We know what the Commonwealth veterans want, need and deserve for their service, so why not just put it in the Bill? The proposed changes do not apply to family members of those who have served or who have been medically discharged, meaning that it will help only a minority of those affected.

Commonwealth service personnel have contributed an enormous amount to our national defence. We owe them a huge debt of gratitude. Extortionate visa fees have left non-UK veterans facing financial ruin and feeling abandoned by the country for which they have potentially laid down their lives. They have served with courage and distinction, and we thank them and then do not give them the rights that they deserve. The Government’s long-overdue proposals are insulting to those personnel and will continue to prevent non-UK veterans from living in the country for which they have fought. Moreover, the proposals will reduce retention and recruitment rates, as has been outlined.

Under new clause 7, Commonwealth and Gurkha veterans who have served four years would pay cost price—they would pay just over £200 instead of £2,389 for an indefinite leave to remain application. Those with families will have to pay nearly £10,000 to apply for a right to remain. We did not ask them for that when they potentially laid down their life for us and for our country. We ask far too much of them, and put far too high a barrier for the indefinite leave to remain application. This is a move that the Royal British Legion and organisations such as Citizenship for Soldiers have long campaigned for, and I pay my respect to them both for their campaigns and for speaking up for so many people. I urge all hon. Members to support the new clause.

The Government like to talk up their support for our service communities, and rightly so, but they are not delivering. It is time for Ministers to deliver the promises of the covenant in full for every member of our armed forces, veterans and their families. I often think that our armed forces personnel lose out because they are not allowed to wear their military uniform out and about, and I absolutely understand the reasons for that. None the less, in countries such as America, armed forces personnel are thanked everywhere they go. They are given special treatment and respect for their service to their country, and rightly so. But our armed forces personnel often do not feel that respect; they cannot because they cannot wear their uniform. The covenant goes a long way to saying how much we respect our armed forces personnel and their families, but it could go a bit further to achieve that. The Opposition’s reasonable and constructive amendments are designed to get the very best for our forces from this legislation, so I urge hon. Members from all sides of the House to support the amendments.

Government Contracts: Covid-19

Fleur Anderson Excerpts

Monday 21st June 2021 Westminster Hall

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Fovargue.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for leading this debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. Above all, I am thankful to all the people who signed the petition and to those who created it, because it means that, whether it is welcome or not, we must have this debate in the House, albeit on a Monday evening and in a small room. It should be happening on the Floor of the House of Commons, but the Government do not seem too keen to have it there, so we are having it here instead. Nevertheless, I thank all those who took the time to sign the petition, because this debate is not going away.

As my hon. Friend said, over 125,000 people have signed this e-petition, which shows the strength of feeling across the country about this issue. And those people signed it last year; if the petition had stayed open, we would have had a lot more signatures. That is because this situation did not stop when people were signing the petition; it has carried on and is carrying or now. There are questions to be answered.

Quite rightly, the British public do not like a cover-up. However, even the first response to this petition by the Government had to be sent back by the Petitions Committee —I thank the Committee for that—as the Government tried to dodge the question and did not really answer it. They had to resend in their homework; eventually, it was a bit better, but it is still not good enough.

Labour has been calling for months for this independent public inquiry into the Government’s handling of the covid pandemic, and the Government’s contracts must form a part of such an inquiry. That is what the public are asking for in this petition, and that is what we need to see. My hon. Friend eloquently outlined all the many different contracts about which there are questions to answer: contracts for PPE, contracts for free school meals and contracts for other things. We need to have an inquiry into all of them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) was right to say that the public want the Government to be careful with money, they want to know how that money is being spent and they want to see the details published. There are key questions about Government appointments and standards of ethics that we want answered. I am sure these questions would be key recommendations of any inquiry.

My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) rightly went through the shocking costs of some of the contracts. They are not shocking in terms of their costs; this money needed to be spent urgently, to save lives. However, there was potential waste behind those contracts. There are also concerns that public confidence has been eroded because of the way that the contracting was carried out.

It is important to have an inquiry, because there are clearly questions to be answered, and lessons need to be learned rapidly. To be honest, I am concerned about leaving all those questions to the public inquiry. The questions about the contracting that is happening now need to be answered now. So a rapid-fire inquiry, which would also be part of the public inquiry, would be the best response to the questions being asked.

This is so important. Today could have been the day that has been termed “freedom day”. Who knows? With a correct track and trace contract, properly administered so that we could have confidence in it, we might not have had to rely only on the vaccine roll-out, which is impressive. Good test and trace could even have enabled us to have completed the opening-up today. That is how important this issue is.

The Government’s reply to the petition referred to the Boardman review, but that is not an independent and unbiased review, and just adds to the lack of transparency. It looks more and more as if the Conservatives are set on glossing over the cronyism in their ranks so that they can carry on as if nothing has happened. The Government have promised a covid inquiry “at the appropriate time”, but the appropriate time to look into these contracts is now. The next pandemic could arrive tomorrow: it is an ever-present threat, and the next one could be bigger and more deadly than covid. The Government cannot kick this inquiry down the road, because a moment of crisis is when our contracting should be better than normal, with higher standards than normal and more reliable than normal, not with more questions and more concerning, “given out to my mates” contracting.

The questions that I, many colleagues here and the public need answers to today are these. How did the urgent scramble to procure resources we needed to get us through the pandemic descend into corruption, waste, cronyism and secrecy? Why is this emergency contracting still going on? What has changed? Is anything better? It did not have to be this way; it should not have to be this way; and it cannot be this way when the next pandemic hits.

In the past 12 months, the Government have ordered £280 million of masks that did not meet the required standards. They have spent over £100 million on gowns without carrying out technical checks, and they could not be used. These were purchased by PestFix, a company that specialises in pest control products and that, by the Government’s own admission, was dormant in 2018 before being referred by the VIP channel. As the Good Law Project uncovered last month, officials at the Department of Health and Social Care were aware that PestFix’s agent may have been bribing officials in China. Most concerning of all, the Government have awarded almost £2 billion in covid contracts to friends and donors of the Conservative party.

The hon. Member for Gravesham (Adam Holloway) raised those points, and he said that there is nothing to see here, but I think he made a good argument for an inquiry.

[Adam Holloway]

I have no objection at all to an inquiry. I was just trying to point out how absolutely preposterous it is that one of the key pillars of this whole argument that there has somehow been corruption is that a bloke in Gravesend gives four grand to the Tory party, as well as the other things I listed, and suddenly has the Government giving multi-million-pound contracts.

[Fleur Anderson]

I say in response to the hon. Member that there is too much here to be answered. It is not just the odd small company here and there; there has been a real pattern of corruption.

[Adam Holloway]

But this is one of the main planks, and it just does not stack up. Do you really think Matt Hancock is going to give a £103 million contract to somebody because they were once a parliamentary candidate and they edged in in a picture with Boris? It is absurd, and it is one of your main planks.

[Yvonne Fovargue (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind hon. Members to refer to other hon. Members not as “you”, but by constituency.

[Fleur Anderson]

The hon. Member has made my case for me. If there is nothing to see here, let us have an inquiry. Members of the public have signed this petition in their thousands because they do not have confidence in these contracts, and they want there to be an inquiry. If everything is above board and all was fine, we will find that out through the inquiry, but it is public concern that has brought us here today. There are questions to be answered, there is a pattern of cronyism that the public are seeing, and that is why an inquiry would be the right response.

It is not good enough for Ministers to say, “We needed these items urgently back in March”—no question there—“so stop complaining about how we did it.” Of course we needed them. Of course systems had to be used to get our NHS staff all the safety equipment they needed then and there, but all checks and balances did not need to go out of the window. Ministers should still check their family connections, and they should still register interests. The best companies should not be overlooked in favour of Tory party donors. These emergency systems should not still be in place so long after they were needed.

Last year, 126,000 people signed this petition, and yet we are still uncovering more issues like those they were concerned about. They are right to feel ignored, and a public inquiry would listen to their concerns. Only a few weeks ago, it emerged that the Home Secretary lobbied the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on behalf of a healthcare firm trying to get a Government contract. She wrote to him expressing disappointment that the Government had not bought face masks from a company that had links to someone she knew. That glaring and flagrant breach of the ministerial code needs to be investigated.

Then, of course, there are the hundreds of millions of pounds handed to Serco to run the national Test and Trace system. Some £37 billion was earmarked, and it is reported that £277 million has been signed by now. Why is there the discrepancy here? What were those contracts for? Where did they go to? Will we get money back for the contracts that were not delivered?

The Local Government Association found last year that local contact tracing systems have a 97.1% success rate at finding close contacts and advising them to self-isolate. That is considerably better than a centralised system, so although rushing to go to the private sector would in many cases have been the right thing to do, was it always the right thing to do? Incidentally, only last week, Serco upgraded its profit forecast by £15 million thanks to its Test and Trace work.

It is not just Opposition MPs making these points. Transparency International has identified 73 contracts worth more than £3.7 billion—equivalent to 20% of the covid-19 contracts signed between February and November 2020—that raised one or more flags for possible corruption. It concluded that there was a systematic bias towards those with connections to the party of Government in Westminster. It found that 72% of the covid-related contracts awarded in the sample period

“were reported after the 30 day legal deadline, £7.4 billion of which was reported over 100 days after the contract award.”

In comparison, it took the Ukrainian Government on average less than a day to publish information on 103,000 covid-19 contracts after they were awarded during the same period.

On that point, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster at least owes us a statement to Parliament setting out where the UK has not complied with its legal transparency obligations, how they are being rectified and how these issues will be prevented in the future. When the Minister comes to respond, she will no doubt tell us that the Government and markets faced unprecedented global demand for PPE, and that in a short space of time the Government procured billions of items of PPE. That just does not wash anymore, which is why the public wanted this debate. The months preceding the first lockdown are a sorry tale of complacency and missed opportunities, leading to the scramble for PPE. There should never have been a shortage in the first place.

We need an inquiry to answer questions about what happened and to make strong recommendations about what to put in place in the future. It should assess the performance of companies that went through the emergency contracting procedures, such as Ayanda, Randox and PestFix, which other Members mentioned. It should speak to the companies affected and to the CEO of the UK Fashion and Textile Association, which represents 2,500 companies and first engaged with the Government on 18 March 2020. He said that the domestic procurement operation had been slow to grind into gear and failed to tap into industry expertise. Companies waiting to deliver the much-needed PPE were overlooked.

An inquiry must look into why the Government sidelined companies such as Arco, which had extensive experience of providing health-grade PPE prior to the pandemic. It provided PPE during Ebola, swine flu, avian flu and foot and mouth, but it secured only £14 million-worth of contracts over the past year during the pandemic. It could have fulfilled far more, and it is at a loss as to why it did not get into the VIP lane.

It will no doubt be argued in a moment that the VIP lane was a perfectly reasonable, rational solution to the mass of offers to supply equipment at the start of the pandemic. However, the opposite was true. We have seen evidence presented in recent High Court hearings showing emails in which civil servants raised the alarm that they were drowning in VIP requests from political connections that did not have the correct certification or did not pass due diligence. For us as outsiders, it does not seem that the VIP lane worked. It should not be used in any future emergency contracting and should not be used in a future crisis, but an inquiry would tell us more and give us those recommendations.

As the Good Law Project puts it:

“This is the cost of cronyism—good administration suffers, efficient buying of PPE suffers.”

I, Members here, the British public and the petitioners want answers from the Minister on four key questions. Will there be a rapid-fire inquiry and will the covid contracts be part of the major covid inquiry? Secondly, what is her Department doing to claw back the cash from companies that provided the Government with millions of items of unsafe, unusable PPE at a time of unprecedented national crisis? What options do the Government have in the contracts—we cannot see them—in terms of clawback? It is important that we know.

Thirdly, will the Government finally, as the Opposition have been demanding for months, deliver full transparency on the VIP lane, including publishing the names of the companies awarded the contracts via the channel and who made referrals to it? Were there any conflicts of interest to be identified and addressed? It is important to know, otherwise the information will just keep dripping out bit by bit and we will find out partially what is going on. If there is nothing to see here, open up the light and let us know.

Finally, will the Minister commit her Department to auditing in detail all the contracts that have raised red flags and to publishing the outcomes of the audit? Given that her Department is formally responsible for improving transparency and ensuring better procurement across Government, we expect the Cabinet Office to take responsibility for what happened, to learn the lessons so that this never happens again, and to ensure that, if there is a future crisis, we have the best contracting facilities for the best companies to deliver what we need immediately. That is what the British public want to know.

Draft Public Procurement (international trade agreements) (amendment) regulations 2021

Fleur Anderson Excerpts

Wednesday 16th June 2021 General Committees

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I am grateful to the Minister for her opening remarks on why we are using this measure to ensure continuity of procurement as we now trade independently of the EU.

Public procurement is so much more than just buying the best products for the best price. It is intimately connected to social value, to supporting our pandemic recovery, to international human and labour rights, to environmental standards and to delivering quality public services at home in the public interest and free from mandatory marketisation and outsourcing. As the Minister said, it is also crucial in relation to access for UK business to markets around the world.

The past year has served as a reminder of the critical importance of public procurement and of strong procurement regulations. In the face of an unprecedented global crisis, we have witnessed a global scramble for finite resources such as personal protective equipment; in their attempt to meet the sudden demand, this Government have pursued a procurement strategy that has wasted millions of pounds on poor-quality products and raised serious concerns about transparency and cronyism. It is therefore so important that we learn our lessons and ensure that public procurement is done correctly. For that reason, I recognise that this is an important statutory instrument to provide both businesses and consumers with continuity and certainty as we leave the EU, and to prevent legal challenges from being brought against us at the WTO by third countries.

I met businesses in my constituency last year in the run-up to Brexit—to leaving the EU—and many had actually begun to liquidate their businesses due to the uncertainty caused by the lack of a trade deal with the EU at that time. It is more important still, given how catastrophic the four-week delay to the ending of restrictions will be for many businesses, that we endorse and support continuity. To support businesses and help provide that all-important continuity, Labour will not oppose the motion. However, I have five questions for the Minister and I would be grateful for clarity.

First, why are the regulations only coming in now? The powers under the Trade Act 2021 have just commenced, but could the instrument have been passed before the respective trade deals were ratified, in the previous parliamentary Session? We are now five years since the referendum vote.

Secondly, in what form will the separate legislation required for trade agreements with countries that did not have an agreement in place with the EU before exit day be brought forward? Can we expect further statutory instruments or will we be given the opportunity to debate the legislation on the Floor of the House?

I and many other colleagues have been simply astonished and concerned by the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 process used thus far to roll over trade agreements without agreement from the House. We have felt disempowered as MPs to scrutinise important trade agreements—a point I made in this very room during debates on the Trade Bill Committee.

Given the critical importance of procurement to public life, I would hope procurement arrangements agreed with nations in the future would be subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny on the Floor of the House. Only this week we have seen another major free trade agreement, with Australia, without any parliamentary scrutiny. Will a Minister be coming to the House to make a statement on that? We have learned more about that deal from the Australian Government briefing their press than from our Government telling Parliament.

Thirdly, will the Minister be taking steps to ensure that any future trade deals are rooted in the “Transforming public procurement” Green Paper? The Trade Justice Movement and a number of trade unions are quite critical of World Trade Organisation rules on public procurement because they make it harder for Governments to regulate in the democratic interest and are designed to force developing countries to hire western multinationals, potentially at the expense of domestic providers, so undermining our own aid agreements. It is therefore important that we develop a UK social partnership approach to procurement, based on the recognition and enforcement of international, regional and local labour, social and environmental standards and goals, including transparent and sustainable global supply chains and fair and transparent artificial intelligence and digital technology practices in public services. Public service workers will be central to that transformative recovery process—that will be building back better.

Fourthly, as the Minister is no doubt aware, we cannot separate international procurement and labour and human rights, particularly in a global supply chain. For instance, the Minister may have seen reports that £150 million of personal protective equipment was procured during the pandemic from Chinese firms linked to Uyghur human rights abuses. There are similar concerns about environmental standards in the supply chain.

As the UK begins to shape its procurement framework and trade policy post Brexit, can the Minister assure me that safeguarding human and labour rights in supply chains will always take priority over purely economic imperatives? Will she, for instance, consider including mechanisms such as a new corporate “failure to prevent” regulation based on human rights and due diligence for all goods and services, and incorporating joint and several liability?

Fifthly and finally, as we move forward and begin pursuing international trade agreements with countries not already trading with the EU, will the Minister tell us how our approach to procurement will diverge from EU regulations? If so, will those differences be published and made clear? Will the Minister commit to ensuring that any divergence in public policy will be subject to an impact assessment, as these regulations are not?

Labour will not oppose the draft regulations today, but I would be most grateful to the Minister for her response on the points I have made, today or in writing.

Oral Answers to Questions

Fleur Anderson Excerpts

Thursday 27th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said in the last Cabinet Office questions:

“Transparency drives everything that the Government do”.—[Official Report, 25 March 2021; Vol. 691, c. 1039.]

However, research by Transparency International found that 20% of the UK’s PPE procurement between February and November last year raised one or more red flags over possible corruption—there are too many secrets. Will the Government now restore public trust and publish all communications between Ministers and their business contacts over these PPE contracts? Will they publish the details of all the contracts that were awarded in the VIP lane and end the secretive emergency contracting?

[Michael Gove]

The emergency contracting procedure, to which the hon. Lady refers, was one that was used by every Administration across the United Kingdom, including the Labour Administration in Wales, and that was because of the pressures that all of us were under. I remember Front Benchers from the Labour party pressing us at an earlier stage in the pandemic, quite rightly, to move even faster to secure that PPE. But, of course, even as were moving more quickly to secure it, there was a seven-step process supervised by civil servants in order to make sure that procurement was handled appropriately. If the hon. Lady has any specific cases where she feels that the process was faulty, I look forward to hearing from her about them, but so far there have been no specific charges from her. More broadly, I welcome emphasis on greater transparency overall.[Official Report, 7 June 2021, Vol. 696, c. 1MC.]

Oral Answers to Questions

Fleur Anderson Excerpts

Wednesday 14th April 2021 Commons Chamber

The President of COP26 was asked—

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

What steps the Government are taking to promote climate action and a green recovery from the covid-19 pandemic ahead of COP26.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

What steps the Government are taking to promote climate action and a green recovery from the covid-19 pandemic ahead of COP26.

[The COP26 President (Alok Sharma)]

The Prime Minister’s 10-point plan sets out our blueprint for a green industrial revolution—a plan to invest in green technologies and industries, leveraging in billions of pounds of private sector investment, supporting up to a quarter of a million green jobs and levelling up across the UK. It is a clear plan to build back greener from the covid pandemic.

[Fleur Anderson]

The UK’s credibility as COP President rests on demonstrable climate action at home. The Government have set legally binding net zero targets but they are currently off track to meet their fourth and fifth carbon budgets, which are calibrated for previous, more lenient targets. Scrapping the green homes grant two weeks ago puts us into reverse. How will the right hon. Gentleman seek to progress local, national and international progress on energy efficiency and specifically on green homes in the run-up to and during COP26?

[Alok Sharma]

The UK has decarbonised its economy faster than any other G20 nation since 2000. We have met carbon budgets CB1 and CB2, we are on track to meet CB3, and of course we are pursuing plans to ensure that we meet CB4 and CB5. Ahead of COP26, we will publish a comprehensive net zero strategy.

Oral Answers to Questions

Fleur Anderson Excerpts

Thursday 25th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Julia Lopez]

I think that the particular thing the hon. Gentleman is referring to relates to personal protective equipment, which I know has attracted a lot of interest. I wish to assure the House that although there has been a lot of discussion about the high-priority lane, it was effectively an email inbox that triaged the thousands of suggestions that were coming in for particular contracts. Even if people got through that—90% of people from that process were rejected—the contracts then went through the same eight-stage process. I wish to assure him that there have been no corners cut.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

From the start of this pandemic, the Government chose to use a centralised, privatised approach to contact tracing through a handful of large companies, rather than putting local public health teams in charge. While a growing number of councils have now had to establish their own systems on a shoestring, it is a completely different set of affairs for the expensive management consultancies. Last night, we learned that as well as the Government paying Deloitte £323 million for its role in the Test and Trace system, it is even paid to draft Ministers’ parliamentary answers defending the indefensible. This is a Government who appear even to have outsourced themselves. What will the Minister do to end this practice, or do I need to write to Deloitte to find out?

[Julia Lopez]

I thank the hon. Lady for highlighting that interesting piece of information. It is not something I am aware of. I appreciate the concerns that have been raised about the use of consultants in relation to some of the work that has been done during the pandemic. We had to surge our capacity very quickly, but I appreciate the concerns that have been expressed about the cost of contracting. We are doing various things to improve the capability and expertise of the civil service. We are looking at secondments for senior civil servants, and we are looking at having our own in-house consulting hub, but I am very happy to look into this idea that consultants are drafting responses for Ministers. It is not something I am aware of.

[Fleur Anderson]

It surprised some attendees of the recent OECD global anti-corruption and integrity forum that the Government’s anti-corruption champion defended the Government’s handling of public contracts. That role is occupied by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose). As well as being a Conservative MP, he has, of course, a very close family interest in the Government’s pandemic response. Does the Minister agree that the post of anti-corruption champion must be independent from party politics to avoid the growing conflicts of interest within Government?

[Mr Speaker]

Can I just check that the hon. Lady let the Member know that she was going to mention him?

[Fleur Anderson]

I did not. I apologise.

[Mr Speaker]

The apology is not for me; it is more to the Member. The hon. Lady needs to let him know.

[Fleur Anderson]

I will do so.

[Julia Lopez]

I thank the hon. Lady for her concerns, but I have no questions or concerns about the integrity of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose).