Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 12th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Julia Lopez]

There is some naivety from Labour Members about how easy it is to do some of these very complex operations at the speed at which they need to be done. We have to thank the private sector for the support that it has given us. We do not have huge volumes of public sector workers sitting there ready to be deployed, and if we did, they would have to be sucked out of other important frontline services. I think we should thank the private sector for the support that it has given us in this very difficult time.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

£1,040,585,807—that is the value of Government contracts that have been directly awarded without competitive tender to companies that have links to the Conservative party’s friends or donors during the covid crisis. Will the Minister explain why, with the Tory party, it seems to be all cheques and no balances?

[Julia Lopez]

The hon. Lady makes a very serious insinuation about some of the ways in which contracts were let. As I said, we have external and internal audits to make sure that those allegations are investigated and that we are confident that they are baseless. I am happy to continue to engage with her on these issues, but the challenges that have faced us in this time have been substantial and a lot of people have dedicated substantial amounts of time, often for free, to giving their services at a time of crisis. To have insinuations about their character and integrity is very damaging to public confidence.

External Private Contractors: Government Use and Employment

Helen Hayes Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2020 Westminster Hall

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) on securing this important debate and on her powerful speech, which set up the multiplicity of ways in which outsourcing is failing workers on pay, terms and conditions, job security, and health and safety.

The devastating impact of these failings was illustrated in many contributions, including those from my hon. Friends the Members for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley), for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) and for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), and from the hon. Members for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon). My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) shared an example from his constituency of outsourced workers in relation to universal credit and being subject to exploitative practices. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) shared the example of staff at Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service who were outsourced, only to find themselves made redundant. There were many other examples, and I thank all hon. Members who contributed to the debate.



The coronavirus pandemic has shone a bright light on the Government’s broken model of outsourcing. It has exposed the grotesque inequality of terms and conditions of employees working side by side in the same Departments—civil servants able to self-isolate on full sick pay, while outsourced cleaners or security staff face an impossible choice between coming to work with symptoms or being unable to pay their bills. There is cruelty and stupidity in that approach, in equal measure. It is terrible for workers and extremely risky for infection control. It has exposed the Government’s dependence on a small number of private firms to deliver vital public services, often with no clear evidence of their ability to do so competently, creating multiple layers of risk, both for staff and for those who rely on the services those firms are contracted to deliver.

Outsourced workers have been an integral part of the frontline during the coronavirus pandemic. Thousands are in roles such as cleaning, security and facilities management. Those jobs cannot be done on Zoom. Those workers have continued to travel to work on public transport, spending their shifts in contact with other workers or surfaces that have been touched by many other hands. Often, they are disproportionately from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds: BAME workers make up 16% and 26% of cleaners and security guards, respectively, compared with 12% of the wider workforce. They are key workers, those same key workers the Government clapped on Thursday evenings earlier in the year. They have faced multiple risks to do their essential work, yet they have been left to fall through the cracks in the protections from which others who work in public service benefit.

The major driver for outsourcing is cost reduction. Studies have shown that all too often it leads to a deterioration in pay, terms and conditions for the workforce, including insecure contracts and a loss of access to benefits, such as pensions and sick pay. That approach is being applied across many different areas of public services. Unite, Unison, the GMB and the Public and Commercial Services Union all have harrowing examples—too many to set out in detail in the time available today—in which Tory austerity is paid for at the expense of the mental, physical and financial wellbeing of outsourced workers in Government Departments, local authorities and the NHS.

Yet the Government’s failing outsource model is simply not delivering. That failure is illustrated most starkly today in the Serco and Sitel track and trace contract, a shocking example of the Tory instinct to outsource overriding all the evidence that local authorities are best placed to deliver a service that involves the day-to-day investigation of contact between people in specific geographical communities. The Government spent more than £10 billion on a contract that has been subcontracted to 29 different unnamed companies, creating a completely unaccountable tangle, and it seems that they are committed to even more of the same.

In 2017, Carillion collapsed in an outsourcing scandal of national proportions. It became clear that Carillion had built a house of cards, with undeliverable contract stacked on undeliverable contract, and a huge web of smaller firms entirely dependent on it. Seven hundred and eighty firms went into liquidation as a consequence of the collapse of Carillion, and more than 3,000 people lost their jobs. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) led the investigation into Carillion as Chair of the Select Committee on Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, and Labour is committed to implementing the lessons of that sorry tale—it is beyond comprehension that the Government are not.

Instead, it would appear that the Government are now content for the two largest Government contractors, Interserve and Mitie, to merge. The merger would create the UK’s largest facilities management company, with almost 80,000 employees, yet both companies have had financial problems in recent years, both have a poor history of industrial relations and, since they are competitors, the merger is a back-door route to obtain contracts that they were previously not considered good enough to be awarded.

In conclusion, I ask the Minister what assessment she has made of the impact of the proposed merger of Interserve and Mitie on employee terms and conditions, on redundancies, and on the quality of services that will be delivered. What assessment has she made of the social value that the merger will bring? What evidence has she seen to give confidence that this is not another Carillion waiting to happen? What discussions has she had with trade unions on the disparity in terms and conditions for outsourced workers in Government buildings and frontline public services during the coronavirus pandemic? Does she know, and will she name, the 29 companies delivering track and trace services for Serco? If not, why not? Finally, and most importantly, what is her message to outsourced key workers on Government contracts, supporting and delivering vital public services, who are fearful today about the safety of their workplace or their journey to work, and are worried that if they develop coronavirus symptoms and have to self-isolate, they will have to choose between the health and safety of their colleagues and the wider public, or their ability to put food on the table?

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Hayes Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I can tell my hon. Friend that the infection rate in York, alas, is now running at 279 per 100,000, and we must get it down. But we can get it down; we can get it down through the package of measures that we have described. You can see, in areas where people are complying with the guidance, that it is having an effect, because if it were not for the efforts and energies of the British people, the R would be running at 3 or more; it is now between 1.2 and 1.5. It will not take much—compliance in those areas that are hit at the moment—to get that R back down below 1. That is what we are aiming for, and that is the way to get businesses across the country, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), in my hon. Friend’s constituency, back on their feet as fast as possible. It would not be sensible, in my view, to plunge them all back into a sustained series of national lockdowns, particularly in areas where the virus is low.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

The Chancellor has decided that people who are unable to work because of coronavirus restrictions should be paid as little as two thirds of the national minimum wage. At the same time, the Government are paying £7,000 a day for consultants to work on the failed Serco track and trace programme. Can the Prime Minister tell the House how on earth he thinks that is justifiable, and is this what he means by “levelling up”?

[The Prime Minister]

The NHS track and trace is now testing more people than any other country in Europe; it has tested, I think, 26 million people so far—or conducted 26 million tests. I am also proud, on the hon. Lady’s other point, that we have been able to support people across the country in the way that we have. She is not correct in what she says about the combined impact of the job support scheme and universal credit, because they work in tandem, and that lifts people’s incomes to 80%, and in some cases more than 90%, of their current incomes. That is the support that we are giving at the moment, but the best thing is to get our country through this crisis, without going back into the social, the psychological, the emotional and the economic disaster—and “disaster” was the word that the Labour party used only a week or so ago—the disaster of a series of national lockdowns.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 1st October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Julia Lopez]

I am afraid that the Competition and Markets Authority is not within my remit, but I am happy to look into any concerns, because contracts and procurement performance are within my remit, and I want to ensure that we receive value for money for the taxpayer in everything we do.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

I understand that the Government’s contract with Sitel for test and trace is renewed on an eight-week basis, with a two-week notice period. The next deadline for renewal is this Sunday, 4 October. Will the Minister publish all the renewal dates for Sitel and Serco’s contracts, and will she explain what justification the Government could possibly have for continuing with the failed privatised, centralised model of test and trace, by contrast to the effectiveness of local councils and public health teams, who are denied the full funding that they require?

[Julia Lopez]

As I have said, without the private sector, we would have struggled to deliver the testing capacity that we now have. Serco and Sitel are approved suppliers on the Crown Commercial Service’s contact centre framework, and they gain their places through fair and open competition via Official Journal of the European Union procurement. Value for money and capability were part of the assessment criteria. But if there are other suppliers that would bid well for the contracts, we are happy to look into that.

[Helen Hayes]

Government spending on consultants has risen sharply in recent years, up by around £1 billion since 2016, with contracts worth at least £56 million awarded without competitive tender during the covid crisis. Does the Minister agree with her colleague Lord Agnew that the Government are reliant on consultants who are providing poor value for money because of their vastly inflated cost when carrying out services that could be conducted more efficiently in-house? If so, can she tell the House when the review into current controls and spending limits will begin, and when it will report?

[Julia Lopez]

Consultants play an important role in what the Government try to achieve on particular projects, but the hon. Lady is right: we have concerns about the cost of those consultants and whether we are too reliant on them, and we are actively reviewing that. I am working with my colleague Minister Agnew on these matters.

Covid-19

Helen Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend puts it very well and very succinctly, and I really could not add anything to what he said.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

One of the most shocking aspects of the coronavirus pandemic has been the disproportionate impact on black, Asian and minority ethnic residents. When Public Health England published a report documenting that injustice, the Government were warned that they needed to act immediately to stop further preventable deaths, but we have seen no urgency. The chair of the British Medical Association is now warning that Government inaction will lead to more preventable deaths of black, Asian and minority ethnic residents over the winter. What is the Prime Minister going to do about it?

[The Prime Minister]

I have already mentioned that we have done a great deal to target measures to protect those in frontline jobs, including many from black and minority ethnic groups. I thank and pay tribute to those public servants, many of whom have done such a fantastic job throughout this crisis at great personal risk. I really thank them for what they are doing, and we are doing everything we can to protect them. Where there are vulnerable communities that need to understand the guidance about coronavirus, we are doing everything we can to get the messages home. Those are just some of the things that the Government are doing.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

The coronavirus pandemic is an unprecedented national emergency, and Labour understands that in response there has been a need for the Government to procure goods and services at speed, but the flexibility required by extraordinary circumstances is no excuse for reducing transparency or abandoning any attempt at due diligence. How does the Minister explain reports that contracts to the value of more than £830 million have been awarded to at least 12 different companies for personal protective equipment that has never materialised; that £108 million of public funds has been handed to PestFix, a company with just £18,000 of assets; and that £830,000 for communications advice has been given without any tender process to Public First, which is owned by friends of the Prime Minister’s most senior adviser, and although the payment was justified as part of the coronavirus response, it appears to relate to Brexit? How are we to believe that this Government have any kind of a grip on public spending during this crisis?

[The Paymaster General (Penny Mordaunt)]

Authorities are allowed to procure goods and services in extreme emergency situations, but that does not mean that scrutiny or value-for-money principles go out the window, and the hon. Lady will understand that. I am shocked to hear that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster may know people in Public First; I wish further offences to be taken into account and confess that I, too, know people who work for Public First—as does every Member on the Front Bench and every Member on the Back Bench on both sides of the House, because one of Public First’s associates is a much-loved former Deputy Speaker of this House. If the hon. Lady has serious concerns—other than insinuation—about any contracts, there are clear processes to go through, and I urge her to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Hayes Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We believe that nuclear power is a significant potential contributor to our net zero ambitions, and I look forward to working with my hon. Friend to ensure that Cumbria continues its long, historic tradition as a pioneer of new nuclear technology.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

It is exactly a week since 18-year-old Donnell Rhule was murdered with a knife on the Kingswood estate in my constituency, leaving his family devastated and a close-knit community reeling. It is exactly two years since the Youth Violence Commission published its interim report, setting out irrefutable evidence for the introduction of a cross-government approach to tackling serious violence, yet the scourge of knife crime across the country continues. The Youth Violence Commission will publish its final report tomorrow. Will the Prime Minister commit to accepting its recommendations and act immediately to introduce a cross-government public health approach to tackling serious violence and stop any more families suffering such terrible loss?

[The Prime Minister]

I know that everybody’s sympathies will be with the family of the victim in the hon. Lady’s constituency, as they are with the families of all victims of knife crime. I think that there are two things we have to do. First, I entirely agree with her that we need a cross-departmental medical approach focused on the needs of the families with the kids who particularly get involved in knife crime, and we need to put our arms around them and stop them being diverted into the gangs that are so often the root cause of the problem.

But we also need a tough policing solution. I have been concerned for the last few years that in London in particular, which the hon. Lady represents, we have not seen the approach that we saw under the previous Mayor, for instance, when there was a significant reduction in knife crime and a significant reduction in murder by dint of having proportionate policing that included the use of stop-and-search to stop young kids carrying knives. We need to have zero tolerance of kids going out on the street armed with a bladed weapon. That is absolutely vital. [Interruption.] An Opposition Member says, “Shocking.” In my experience, the people who are most supportive of taking the knives off kids on the streets of our city are the mothers of those kids who are most at risk of being killed. They support stop-and-search, and I hope the hon. Lady does, too.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

That is a characteristically good idea from the Chairman of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and I will discuss it with my Cabinet colleagues.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

The terms of reference for the Public Health England report on covid-19 disparities promised recommendations for further action to reduce disparities in risk and outcomes, yet the report did not include a single recommendation. The Government have since announced that the equality hub in the Cabinet Office will review existing actions, commission further data and undertake further engagement. I ask the Minister: where is the urgency? On what date will we see a clear, detailed action plan to stop further preventable deaths and address the appalling inequality of this pandemic? When will the Government demonstrate, with their actions, that black lives matter by putting in place the protections that black, Asian and minority ethnic workers and communities need to keep them safe from coronavirus?

Parliamentary Constituencies Bill

Helen Hayes Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion & Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 2nd June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

I would like to thank all the hon. Members who have contributed to this important debate this afternoon. My particular thanks go to my hon. Friends the Members for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins), for Jarrow (Kate Osborne), for Bradford South (Judith Cummins), for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins), for City of Chester (Christian Matheson), for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) and for Newport West (Ruth Jones) for their speeches, which demonstrated their depth of commitment both to democratic representation and to the communities they serve, and raised important issues about the detail of this Bill.

Several Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for City of Chester and for Pontypridd, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) and the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Craig Williams), raised important points about the impact of this legislation on representation in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Strong devolved representation within the nations is critical to the integrity of our United Kingdom. A Bill that reduces the number of parliamentary constituencies in the devolved nations while increasing the number of English seats risks putting further strain on the integrity of the Union. I hope that the Leader of the House will address that point directly when he responds to the debate.

Members from all parties agree that the periodic review of constituency boundaries is a vital part of our representative democracy, and that this review is long overdue. It is our constituencies that give shape and meaning to our democratic process, and they ensure that the concerns of each part of our diverse United Kingdom are given voice and representation. For that reason, it is crucial that long-held community ties form the basis of constituency boundaries, bringing together communities that share common interests and needs. That point was made well by a number of hon. Members who spoke of the risk of villages being split or severed from the towns that they rely on. These things matter to our communities. It is therefore extremely disappointing that the Government have again refused to compromise on the issue of the 5% electoral tolerance. What response can the Leader of the House provide to the apolitical academic experts who have highlighted the restrictive and damaging impact that the 5% quota will have on constituency boundaries? Just a slight widening of the electoral quota to 7.5%, as supported by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, will vastly improve the geographic and community coherence of new boundaries and as a result ensure better representation for communities.

When the Government introduced the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill in 2010, a pre-legislative inquiry heard evidence from several witnesses that the proposed number of 600 constituencies chosen by the Government was not based on clear evidence. The Hansard Society told the Committee that the number had been

“plucked from thin air—600 simply being a neat number.”

The Government have now made a U-turn on that arbitrary number but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) mentioned, the 2013 review based on 600 constituencies cost the taxpayer in the region of £700 million, and the 2018 review is likely to have a cost of upwards of £8 million. Does the Leader of the House accept that the Government’s political indecision has been a waste of taxpayers’ money? Will he clarify for the record how much the 2018 boundary review cost?

Many Members have raised the issue of the alarming removal of parliamentary oversight from the process. Parliament has an important role to play as an emergency backstop to prevent power grabs by the Executive, but the Tories are attempting to remove that backstop, thereby threatening serious unforeseen consequences for the future of our democratic process. Such a move is of deep concern for the integrity of our parliamentary democracy. In response to concerns, the Government assert that removing Parliament from the process will ensure that the boundary commissions’ reports will be implemented without interference from either Government or Parliament, but that is not strictly true. The Government make the legislation that instructs the boundary review process, and Ministers have already taken political advantage of the process by creating a loophole in the Bill. Without parliamentary oversight, the handbrake that previously prevented the Tories from removing 50 MPs on an entirely arbitrary basis no longer exists. If passed, the new legislation will allow the Tories to force through reductions to the number of MPs without any backstop in place to prevent it.

We are talking about a Government found by the highest court in this land to have unlawfully shut down Parliament, suspending democratic accountability and attempting to gag democratic opposition. This is not hyperbole or idle speculation; it happened just last year. In such a context, there can be no guarantee that Ministers will not take advantage of the silencing of Parliament in favour of strengthening their own Executive power. Will the Leader of the House take this opportunity to confirm that the Government will not simply use the loophole to force through a reduction in the number of constituencies, or any other changes that are not included in the Bill, further down the line?

My final point is about the electoral registration dataset on which this review will be based. We are currently facing exceptional circumstances. I welcome the Minister’s acknowledgement that the 2020 electoral register will be heavily affected by the current coronavirus crisis, but this is still the enumeration date set out on the face of the Bill. We cannot expect local councils to do the proactive outreach work that is needed to maintain an up-to-date and fully accurate register while providing an emergency response to a global pandemic. The costs of fighting coronavirus have taken an immense financial toll on councils, and they now face a £10 billion funding gap, which the Government are unwilling to fill. Can the Leader of the House confirm that the Government will accept an amendment to the enumeration date to December 2019? This pragmatic change—in the context of a review for which we have waited 20 years, taking place in unprecedented circumstances—will avoid the new constituency boundaries being based on an incomplete and potentially unrepresentative register.

The Labour party supports the democratic principle of the boundary review, but the Government must consider the implications of the restrictive 5% tolerance along with the 1 December 2020 enumeration date. We remain deeply concerned about the removal of parliamentary oversight from a process that has always had this scrutiny. I encourage Members from across the House to support the reasoned amendment and to reject the continued centralisation of power in the hands of the Executive at the expense of Parliament.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Helen Hayes Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons & Money resolution & Programme motion & Ways and Means resolution
Friday 20th December 2019 Commons Chamber

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

I thank voters in my constituency for re-electing me to serve as their Member of Parliament. It is an honour to represent one of the most diverse constituencies in the country. In 2016 it voted overwhelmingly to remain in the European Union, and, in my experience, the strength of my constituents’ pro-EU views has only grown over the past three years.

The vast majority of my constituents did not vote to “get Brexit done”, and my mandate from them is to keep standing up for our values in Dulwich and West Norwood and to champion their interests. Our values are those of outward-facing internationalism, a celebration of diversity and community solidarity. These are the values that underpin our support for membership of the EU and these are the values that lead us to be deeply concerned about Brexit and this Government’s reckless approach to it.

Our values lead us to be concerned about the protections people are afforded in their workplace, the protection of our environment and our response to the climate emergency. They lead us to prioritise human rights and to be concerned about how Governments are held to account for human rights abuses which happen on their watch. And they lead us to be concerned about refugees and to want the UK to play a full role in responding to the global refugee crisis by welcoming people who have lost everything and helping them to rebuild their lives. Indeed, many of my constituents are already playing their part through community sponsorship groups and they want to see the Government doing the same.

We are dismayed to see in the Bill the Government jettison their previous commitment to the Dubs amendment on child refugees and the non-regression clauses, which were designed to ensure that the UK does not move backwards on workers’ rights relative to the EU—or at least that if the Government did so it would be completely transparent and they could be held to account. In relation to human rights, the previous Government removed the UK’s commitment to the charter of fundamental rights. The Bill further waters down the commitment to the European convention on human rights, and the political declaration makes no mention of rights previously protected by the EU charter of fundamental rights. There is a real risk that hard-won rights fought for over hundreds of years could be watered down by this or any other future Government.

The Prime Minister’s reckless approach to the implementation period is nothing short of a disgrace. There is not a shred of evidence that a trade deal with the EU can be secured within a year. The EU says it cannot. All trade deal precedents indicate that it cannot. Yet the Prime Minister seeks to enshrine in law the UK’s crashing out of the EU with no trade deal in just a year’s time. Brexit will not be done; it will be doing its worst to communities up and down the country. Jobs will be lost and lives left devastated if we crash out in a year’s time. I urge newly elected Government Members to reflect very carefully on what exactly this will mean for the communities they represent, and to heed the warnings of UK manufacturers about the dependence of supply chains on our membership of the single market and customs union.

None of this is hypothetical. It is about the ability of thousands of people to go to work in secure, well-paid jobs that keep a roof over their family’s head. It is about the rights of working people to holiday pay, maternity and parental leave, sick pay and protection from discrimination and unfair dismissal.

[Mr Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady accept that, actually, in many cases UK standards are higher than those of the European Union? I am very confused as to why Opposition Members keep using the EU as a gold standard when actually it is the UK that is the gold standard.

[Helen Hayes]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but I do not accept that that is the case. Nor do I accept that the Bill does anything other than leave those rights to the mercy of any future Government. I do not trust this Prime Minister to maintain the standards we have derived from the EU.

It is about the protection of our woodlands, rivers and coastal habitats at a time when the environment could not be more important. It is about the practical expression of our values in the way that we treat the world’s most vulnerable children.

I understand that the Prime Minister has a majority that means he will pass the Bill and we will leave the European Union, but my constituents will not be denied a voice in that debate. Make no mistake: the Bill will deliver nothing but damage to the UK on many fronts. I will oppose it, I will stand up for my constituents’ values and interests, and I will hold the Government to account for the consequences of their reckless actions.

[Several hon. Members rose—]