UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Jeremy Quin

  • Jeremy Quin – 2023 Speech on Skills, Efficiency and Technology in the Civil Service

    Jeremy Quin – 2023 Speech on Skills, Efficiency and Technology in the Civil Service

    The speech made by Jeremy Quin, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, at Old Queen Street in Westminster, London on 19 July 2023.

    I am pleased to announce that a total of £4.4 billion savings were delivered by the central government functions in the financial year 2021/22.  These are split between  audited cashable (£3.4 billion) and non-cashable (£1 billion).  The Cabinet Office has now published this on GOV.UK.

    This wasn’t a one-off event. In the year prior to that, the central government Function Teams also delivered £3.4 billion worth of audited savings. This means around £8bn of cashable and non-cashable savings were delivered in the last 2 years.  We have achieved this by thinking differently and driving success.

    The components of these savings vary year in year out – this year for example over £1 billion of savings were delivered by identifying and correcting fraudulently claimed Universal Credit (UC).  This is an area post our establishment of the Public Sector Fraud Authority which is likely to grow further.

    I am delighted that to take this work further the Treasury are releasing today a Government Efficiency Framework, ensuring consistent reporting of efficiencies across the whole of Government and reporting processes to track delivery and drive continuous improvement.

    Another step along the remorseless but critical path of delivering improved productivity across the civil service.

    Our modernisation work is not limited to the services delivered by central government.

    UK’s public bodies which play a vital role in delivery but whose independence of action can risk them becoming divorced from a culture of continuing improvement are subject to reviews and improvement.

    To date, 71 of the initial 125 public body reviews have been launched covering over 90% of ALB expenditure.

    Most of the largest ALBs will be reviewed in the next 18 months, benefitting from experienced teams and the active support of ALB boards:  completed reviews have recommended actions to improve governance, capability and use of resources to deliver the best possible value for the taxpayer.

    REFORMING PROCUREMENT

    As a Government we provide services. We spend, across the Public Sector, £300bn annually on procurement, and we deliver enhancements to our national infrastructure.

    After a substantial effort we are now within weeks of the Procurement Bill clearing both houses.  In a rare example of Government adopting the refreshing motto of “Keep it Simple Stupid” it cuts down the 350 different procurement regulations founded on EU Procurement, to create one simple rulebook.

    It will help set the framework of an ever more outcomes-based approach to procurement so that we can buy goods and services: don’t tell the market exactly how to build a bridge, engage with them on how we can best cross the water.  You may be amazed by what you discover.

    STRONGER PROJECT MANAGEMENT FOR BETTER SERVICES

    On which subject we know that better infrastructure delivers better productivity.

    Over the last two years the government’s major projects portfolio has doubled in size to oversee nearly 250 programmes, with a whole life cost of nearly £800bn.

    Bringing more projects into the central portfolio has created better central oversight and investment, enabling more transparency and closer scrutiny. 89% of those projects now have a green or amber delivery confidence, up from 64% in 2020.

    So, this rigorous focus on efficiency, on improving procurement and better project management is delivering the foundation to improve our productivity and enhance our public services.

    When Francis introduced the functions it amounted to a revolutionary step – the Victorian departmental silo model being complimented by a lattice of cross-departmental experts with which most in the commercial sector will be familiar.  12 years on they continue to flourish, they continue to deliver and the GEF will make their job easier and their results even more transparent.

    BUILDING A MODERN CIVIL SERVICE: PLACES, PEOPLE, PROCESS AND PROGRAMME ASSESSMENT

    Functions delivering is but one aspect of the Declaration to which we as ministers and civil servants are committed.

    To continue the process of reform we need to be open to the views and experiences of those outside the public sector who recognise the extraordinary opportunities it provides and want to add their talents to the many we employ.

    We need to ensure that they are supported in a modern workplace environment making the most of the myriad opportunities of data and AI.

    And we need to help them to focus their time and their energy on what works.

    First on People.

    For too long, policy making and the leadership of the Civil Service has been too London-centric.  That’s why we committed to relocating 22,000 Civil Service roles out of London by 2030.

    This year we have crossed a major milestone having relocated over 12,000 roles outside of London and the South East…

    That is more than half of our total commitment in just the first three years of the programme and more than 75% of our ambition to relocate 15,000 roles by 2025.

    We’re also well on our way to the target of 50% UK based SCS outside London, with 30% now based outside the capital.

    We’ve launched multiple departmental second headquarters including Cabinet Office’s second headquarters in Glasgow.  The Cabinet Office is not alone in looking to Scotland – nearly 20% of the roles moved out of London have been relocated to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, with additional government hubs in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast.

    We have also launched a major policy campus in Sheffield, creating the largest centre of policy making outside London.

    The benefits of this to levelling up, to VFM and to strengthening our Union are important, obvious and are rightly regularly praised.

    I want however to be selfish – I see the benefits in simple terms – the opportunity it provides to recruit brilliant civil servants – many of whom I have met in Scotland and Wales, the North and South West into our teams.

    I believe we will find further scope to enhance Places for Growth – including by focussing on our Arms Length bodies.

    But we need to do more beyond PfG to broaden our base of talent.

    Above all we need to be an employer that welcomes new blood at every stage of someone’s career.

    Just 1 in 5 new entrants to the Senior Civil Service are currently external. I want to ensure that every potential recruit who wants to bring their expertise to bear in the public interest can feel able to apply to do so.  And I want us to be able to harness that talent where we know it will add value.

    That’s why last year we cemented a much stronger requirement for all Senior Civil Service roles to be advertised externally, a move recommended by Policy Exchange.

    It’s no longer possible to hold an internal recruitment competition for a senior civil servant role without explicit Ministerial approval.

    Whilst this change is already making a difference, we can and should do more.

    It is not enough simply to advertise a job externally..

    Currently, the ‘street to seat’ recruitment process can take as long as 80 days, if not longer and that’s before vetting…

    If we are fishing in a competitive pool for talent, trying to persuade those with much to give to turn their back on other opportunities and follow the rewarding path of public service, we need to get real about how we perform as recruiters.

    We must ensure that every aspect of civil service recruitment, from how we advertise, to how we recognise external expertise, to how we select and onboard recruits, supports good candidates.

    So, we are asking departments and professions to trial alternative recruitment approaches.

    They will experiment with running recruitment campaigns with simplified job adverts, ridding them of Whitehall speak…

    And they will speed up recruitment, with a focus on cutting the bureaucracy that puts off or times out brilliant candidates…

    And to help speed up onboarding,  we are improving our vetting system. UK Security Vetting are recruiting new staff and improving processes and systems to bring KPIs up to the levels we need to see. We are determined to deliver a radical overhaul of policy, process and systems.

    EMBRACING DIGITAL AND AI

    Growing our talent pool is great but our civil servants need the tools to finish the job.  A revolution is underway in digital and AI and our civil servants must be part of it: taxpayers will, rightly, demand the same ease of access to services and support that will become second nature in the private sector.

    We need to be better at utilising the digital talent we already have within the Civil Service and in stressing its importance.

    This September, our government-wide initiative ‘One Big Thing’ will be launched:. The focus for 2023 is data-upskilling.  It will engage every single civil servant – that’s half a million training days on data this autumn. This shows our determination to build knowledge and deliver.

    Over the next two years we are rolling out two new digital platforms to enable us to understand, develop and utilise the skills of our workforce and help staff move more easily between departments.

    The Government Skills Campus will provide a single platform across Government with better access to the learning civil servants need. It will use skills data to intelligently drive the right content to learners and provide the skills data needed to inform workforce planning.

    Another new platform will then enable all civil servants to move from one department to another – at pace and without friction. Not only will this save money – approximately £100m over the next 5 years – it means it will be easier to move the people with the right skills and experience to the right roles in government.  Placing colleagues in more satisfying roles and gleaning the benefits of targeted experience.

    Digital and data innovations like these are the defining tools of the 21st Century but they can only be effective when senior leaders understand them.  I am delighted that we are on track to exceed our ambition for 50% of Fast Stream hires for 2023 to have a STEM subject background.  But we cannot wait decades as they progress….

    Through the Digital Excellence Programme we will be equipping government leaders with these skills, starting with 3,000 senior leaders this year.

    We can offer digital technicians the most extraordinary opportunities to put their talents to the test in delivering solutions which matter to people day in day out.  I know how competitive that talent pool is but what better way to invest in your staff than to give them the opportunity of taking on some of the most fascinating challenges.

    To enhance our secondment programme we are developing a specific Digital Secondments pilot with our digital team in the Central Digital and Data Office.

    I know that there are people from the best tech firms in the country who believe in public service…

    Who want to help with the biggest challenges facing society today…

    So we will create a pathway for them to join the civil service through a secondment and empower them to drive real tangible change….

    DRIVING IMPROVEMENTS IN DIGITAL PROCESS

    We must attract and retain the best in digital talent so that we can harness the power of digital, data and technology in order to deliver most efficiently and effectively for the public.

    Our groundbreaking Roadmap for Digital and Data, encompasses 21 ambitious commitments to be achieved by 2025.

    Among these commitments, we have pledged to elevate 50 of the government’s top services to a “Great” standard and we are introducing One Login, a vital new system that will allow citizens to access all central Government services effortlessly using a single account.

    We need to ensure that GOV.UK, with over 1m visits a day and over 29bn page views since 2012 provides a service equal what we would expect to see in the public service.

    That’s why we’ve established a team to lead on digital service transformation across government. This team identified the opportunities, blockers and support to improve services.

    That’s also why 32 organisations in government have adopted the same pay framework to drive recruitment and retention of digital professionals, saving taxpayer money by reducing reliance on contractors and managed services.

    Recent months have seen huge developments in Artificial Intelligence technology, presenting, if developed appropriately, clear opportunities for government. Our ambition is to use AI confidently and responsibly, where it matters most, to improve public services and boost productivity.

    Our central team of digital and technology experts is creating a practical framework to put this technology to work across the civil service, solving problems of privacy, ethics and security, and bringing insights and best practice from industry.

    I am excited to announce that following last year’s pilot the incubator for Automation and Innovation, known as i.AI, will become a permanent civil service team focussed on some of our most important and intractable challenges.

    And right at the heart of government, the Number 10 Innovation Fellowships program is bringing in AI experts from industry and academia to help solve problems in public service delivery using AI and automation.

    We are already creating a Data Marketplace to break down barriers to sharing data inside government. But we also know the potential for government data to drive value and innovation in the economy. Therefore, as recommended by the Vallance review, our ambition is to make the marketplace available to third parties outside government, such as businesses and researchers.  By 2025 our aim is to do just that.

    We will launch and scale a cross government digital apprenticeship programme to support recruitment and development of 500 new DDaT professionals this financial year.

    STRONGER ASSESSMENT OF PUBLIC PROGRAMMES

    It’s an old adage that the only mistake you can make is by not learning from it…

    That is why since the Declaration on Government Reform we established the Evaluation Task Force to improve Government programme evaluation:   to better inform decisions on whether programmes should be continued, expanded, modified or stopped.

    I learned, to my exasperation as Minister for Defence procurement, that while I was desperately securing cash to back brilliant innovative ideas, without rigorous Ministerial testing others could quietly languish long after it became apparent they weren’t fit for purpose.

    In innovation a failure is when the project is allowed to continue when all hope is lost – fail fast, reinvest.

    The same must be true of policy.

    We need evaluation baked in from the outset in everything we do.

    Yes this can identify where policy, whisper it not, doesn’t deliver. It can happen.  Where it does, let’s act not hide.  A productive public sector is not one which is too shy to accept that not everything works.  In the commercial world it’s known, recognised, embraced.  We need to lose our hang ups.

    But we can and must learn from our successes

    The DLUHC supporting families evaluation showed not only the impact of the policy in reducing adult and juvenile custodial sentences, but was robust enough to know that for every pound we spent on the programme, it delivered £2.28 of economic benefits and £1.52 of financial benefits.

    The Task Force has provided advice on 211 evaluations across government, covering £115bn of spending.

    On the basis that only idiots learn from their own mistakes, the wise from other peoples’….

    I am delighted to announce that the Evaluation Task Force is launching the Evaluation Registry, which will provide, for the first time, a single online focus for evaluations across government.

    The Evaluation Registry has been built from the ground-up to be best-in-class in driving evidence based policy making. When it launches, it will be one of the biggest stores of information on social policy evaluations in the world, containing over 2000 evaluations from the outset.

    It will be available to all government departments this year and in the future supported by funds worth over £50m for evaluations to generate new evidence in critical areas of policy making.

    CONCLUSION: BRILLIANT PUBLIC SERVICE

    So let’s get back to our fictional Sir Arnold.

    Were he to return to our screens today he would I hope be disquieted by the notion that a new recruit may start their career, progress their career and end their career as a Permanent Secretary without necessarily ever working within 10 miles of Peter Jones.

    What’s more, talent is not only arriving directly into the upper echelons of the SCS, it’s being actively pursued and welcomed.

    We are embracing the opportunities of digital and AI and what that will mean for making us more efficient and improving the services we deliver.

  • Jeremy Quin – 2023 Statement on Sue Gray and Role Within Labour Party

    Jeremy Quin – 2023 Statement on Sue Gray and Role Within Labour Party

    The statement made by Jeremy Quin, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and the Paymaster General, in the House of Commons on 6 March 2023.

    I can confirm that, following a media report the previous day, Sue Gray, formerly second permanent secretary to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and to the Cabinet Office, resigned from the civil service on Thursday 2 March. This resignation was accepted with immediate effect. On Friday 3 March, a statement from the Opposition announced that the Labour party had offered Sue Gray the role of chief of staff to the Leader of the Opposition.

    The House will recognise that this is an exceptional situation. It is unprecedented for a serving permanent secretary to resign to seek to take up a senior position working for the Leader of the Opposition. As hon. Members will expect, the Cabinet Office is looking into the circumstances leading up to Sue Gray’s resignation in order to update the relevant civil service leadership and Ministers of the facts. Subsequent to that, I will update the House appropriately.

    By way of background, to inform hon. Members, there are four pertinent sets of rules and guidance for civil servants relating to this issue. First, under the civil service code, every civil servant is expected to uphold the civil service’s core values, which include impartiality. The code states that civil servants must

    “act in a way which deserves and retains the confidence of ministers”.

    Secondly, rules apply when very senior civil servants wish to leave the service. Permanent secretaries are subject to the business appointments process that, for most senior leavers, is administered by the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments. ACOBA provides advice to the Prime Minister, who is the ultimate decision maker in cases involving the most senior civil servants. Once the Prime Minister agrees the conditions and the appointment is taken up, ACOBA publishes its letter to the applicant on its website.

    The business appointment rules form part of a civil servant’s contract of employment. The rules state that approval must be obtained prior to a job offer being announced. The Cabinet Office has not, as yet, been informed that the relevant notification to ACOBA has been made.

    Thirdly, civil servants must follow guidance on the declaration and management of outside interests. They are required, on an ongoing basis, to declare and manage any outside interests that may give rise to an actual or perceived conflict of interest. Finally, the directory of civil service guidance states:

    “Contacts between senior civil servants and leading members of the Opposition parties…should…be cleared with…Ministers.”

    Having set out the relevant rules, I finish by saying that, regardless of the details of this specific situation, I understand why Members of this House and eminent outside commentators have raised concerns. The impartiality and perceived impartiality of the civil service is constitutionally vital to the conduct of government. I am certain that all senior civil servants are acutely aware of the importance of maintaining impartiality. Ministers must be able to speak to their officials from a position of absolute trust, so it is the responsibility of everyone in this House to preserve and support the impartiality of the civil service.

    Sir Robert Buckland

    To echo my right hon. Friend’s comments, many of us are surprised and, frankly, deeply disappointed about the particular circumstances that have emerged. This is not about the character or quality of Sue Gray. Having had the pleasure of working with her over a number of years, I can testify, along with many others, to those qualities.

    This is, as my right hon. Friend said, about the fundamental trust that has to exist between impartial civil servants up to the highest level—and here we are dealing with a permanent secretary—and the Ministers they serve. That has been the position since at least the Northcote-Trevelyan report of the mid-19th century, and it must be the position in future, particularly if the Labour party is serious about wishing to achieve power. This Government are prepared to defend that impartiality, but the activities of the Leader of the Opposition might suggest that he is not prepared to defend that impartiality.

    I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for clarifying the position on the application to ACOBA. Will he confirm that this appointment, if it is to be taken up, cannot be taken up before it is formally approved, following advice from that committee? Secondly, is it correct that the prevailing ACOBA advice for civil servants has a potential waiting period of between three months and two years? Thirdly, will a lobbying prohibition be imposed in this case? Finally, will a restriction on the passage of official information to the Labour party be imposed in this instance?

    I say again that trust and impartiality are vital if this system of government is to work. I would hope that in this case those issues will be defended.

    Jeremy Quin

    I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that. I share his disappointment; whatever the merits of the individual, I stress that it is critical that we all, on both sides of the House, do all we can to support the impartiality of the civil service. He asks about three points in particular. He asks whether there is a three-month to two-year period, and he is right. ACOBA also has the ability to recommend that no such appointment would be appropriate—it can go further—but there is a standard three-month waiting period in the contracts of employment for permanent secretaries. ACOBA generally goes up to two years but it can go further.

    There is a lifetime requirement on all civil servants, which I know they take hugely seriously, to respect the confidentiality of the work they do. It is right that that is in place. Lastly, ACOBA is in an advisory position. I have not been impressed by the Labour party over this saga. I trust that the Labour party would indeed follow recommendations from ACOBA—unless Labour is going to cast even more doubt on its credibility.

  • Jeremy Quin – 2023 Statement on the Procurement Bill

    Jeremy Quin – 2023 Statement on the Procurement Bill

    The statement made by Jeremy Quin, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and the Paymaster General, in the House of Commons on 9 January 2023.

    I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

    At some £300 billion, public procurement accounts for around a third of all public expenditure every year. By improving the way we procure, we can save the taxpayer money, drive innovation and resilience, and deliver benefits across every region of the country. We have an opportunity, post our departure from the European Union, to create our own regulations that can help to drive transparency, prosperity and growth. The Procurement Bill seizes that opportunity and reflects three years of policy development, public consultation and detailed intensive engagement. This has included local government, the education and health sectors, businesses of all sizes, and the social enterprise sector, among others.

    To ensure that the new regime is truly world leading, the Bill will fundamentally improve the UK’s public procurement regime, driving a relentless focus on value for money. It will create a simpler, more flexible commercial system that better meets our country’s needs.

    John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)

    Will the Minister give way?

    Jeremy Quin

    I give way to my right hon. Friend.

    John Spellar

    The Minister is starting out with the message that the Government are somehow able to do this because of Brexit, but it was nothing to do with European regulation that the Ministry of Defence decided to contract for naval vessels from other countries. In doing that, it was no way acting like any other European country. It was a Whitehall choice and a ministerial choice. The Government had the choice, and they should stop using this as a smokescreen.

    Jeremy Quin

    I referred to the right hon. Gentleman as my right hon. Friend because he is so familiar from my appearances at the Dispatch Box in my Ministry of Defence role, and it is lovely to hear the same lines being produced again. I am no longer in that role and I am not here to speak for the Ministry of Defence, but I think he must be referring to the fleet solid support ship programme—a prospect that will rejuvenate Harland & Wolff and really get Appledore working again. I believe that it will deliver 1,500 jobs to the UK shipbuilding industry, helping to recreate the skills that were so foolishly lost in the last round. The decisions that were made under the last Labour Government in 2005 left us with fewer yards than we would all like, and I think it was a positive decision from the Ministry of Defence to award the FSS contract as it did. I wish Harland & Wolff and the rest of the British designers the very best with it.

    John Spellar

    But is the Minister clear, now that he has left the Ministry of Defence, that the contract is not with Harland & Wolff, but with the Spanish shipbuilder Navantia and a British shell company set up only last June? There is no assurance that this work will go to British yards.

    Jeremy Quin

    The right hon. Member refers to Team Resolute, and I am delighted that it won the tender. The majority of that work will be undertaken in British yards—[Interruption.] We could continue to make this a discussion on defence procurement, but I think the rest of the House wants to discuss the Bill before us, as I certainly do.

    Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab) rose—

    Jeremy Quin

    But before doing so, I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

    Bill Esterson

    The Minister says that he is here to talk about a modern procurement system for the UK, but The Guardian is saying today that a Conservative peer who advised the Government during the pandemic helped a company to secure a £50-million contract after being introduced to the firm by another peer with financial interests in that company. Can the Minister tell us exactly which clause in the Bill he is putting forward today would have prevented that extreme example of cronyism from happening?

    Jeremy Quin

    Alas, it is a great loss to me, but I have not read The Guardian today and I am not in a position to comment in detail on what the hon. Gentleman has said. If he goes through the Bill in detail, as I and other Members have, he will find the parts that refer to declarations of conflicts of interest. These are issues that we will be significantly improving through the Bill to ensure that there can be no doubt that integrity lies at the heart of our procurements. That has always been the case, but it will be even more entrenched as a result of the provisions of this Bill.

    Bill Esterson rose—

    Jeremy Quin

    I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make some progress. If I give two chances to every Member, we will be here for a much longer time.

    There are currently hundreds of procurement regulations spread over four different regimes for different types of procurement. We will consolidate them into a single regime. This will remove duplication and create one rulebook that everyone can understand and use, with sectoral differences only where absolutely necessary, such as for reasons of defence or national security.

    Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)

    Which line in the Bill will prevent, say, a future landlord who has a close relationship with a future Minister from securing a contract worth millions of pounds for personal protective equipment, or prevent someone who produces underwear, who happens to be in the other place, from securing a contract via a conversation via a VIP lane? Which line in this Bill will close that down?

    Jeremy Quin

    If the hon. Gentleman has not read the Bill, I recommend that he does so. There is a lot of it, but it is a good read and he will find it has a range of measures to ensure transparency at the heart of our procurement. I do not accept the premise of his question—if his question has a premise—that previous procurements were incorrectly awarded; far from it. If he wants to see a Bill that enhances transparency, that ensures there are always proper procedures in place to address conflicts of interest and that ensures the best propositions win tenders, he will support the Bill this evening, as I hope the rest of the House will.

    Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)

    Perhaps I could mention something that is in the Bill, rather than not in the Bill.

    I welcome the Bill, and particularly how it will benefit our small and medium-sized enterprises and the local sustainability of good-quality British products, but clause 65 was helpfully added by the noble Lord Alton and a cross-party alliance in the other House to make sure that we do not procure from countries found guilty of genocide or human rights abuses, particularly China. Can the Minister confirm that the Government not only support clause 65 but will extend it beyond just surveillance technology? We should not procure goods and services from countries found guilty of genocide or human rights abuses, such as China in Xinjiang, as verified by a vote in this House. We should just not deal with them.

    Jeremy Quin

    It is a pleasure to respond to a question about a clause in the Bill, for which I thank my hon. Friend. We are thinking through the Lords amendments, and there will be further time to discuss them in Committee. Anything that is added to the Bill must be deliverable and workable. I stress that the Bill already contains much-enhanced provisions to ensure we can prevent inappropriate suppliers from coming into our production chain, not just as primes at the top level but right through the supply chain. For example, we will be able to debar companies for misconduct or illegality. We are taking far more powers than we had under the old EU regime, which should be welcomed by all Members of this House.

    Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)

    Will my right hon. Friend give way?

    Jeremy Quin

    I will give way, but then I must make progress.

    Bob Seely

    My right hon. Friend was making a point about ethics, so I will make a point about dependency. Do the Government accept that they have purchasing power to reduce our dependency on authoritarian states, and do they accept there are lessons to be learned from the Ukrainian war, our economic and energy dependence on Russia and our economic dependence on China? Will they accept an amendment, tabled by me or by others, so that, as well as having ethics at the heart of this Bill, we can discuss how to reduce our dependency on states that seek to harm us, be it Russia, China, North Korea or Iran, etc.?

    Jeremy Quin

    I would welcome the opportunity to speak to my hon. Friend about any amendment he might table, and we would, of course, look at it seriously. I recognise the general point that this country has realised, as have all our friends, through covid and subsequently that it is incredibly important to understand our supply chains and to understand where our procurement comes from. The Bill will help us do that by enabling us to look through the entire supply chain—not just the top level, but deep inside—to make certain that we are able to stop suppliers that are effectively in misconduct, and to make certain that resilience is part of our thought process in procurement. I believe all those valuable assets are incorporated in this Bill, but I am more than happy to have further discussions with my hon. Friend.

    I hope the House will forgive me if I make a little progress. Running through this Bill is a theme of greater transparency. Through the Bill, we will deliver world-leading standards of transparency in public procurement. It covers contracts awarded across the public sector, including by central and local government, arm’s length bodies, education authorities and health authorities. It also covers contracts awarded by publicly funded housing associations and by companies in the water, energy and transport sectors.

    Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)

    The Minister is being generous in giving way. Can he indicate whether the Government will accept the amendments made in the other place requiring contracting authorities to maximise environmental benefits when awarding contracts, and particularly to ensure compliance with the Climate Change Act 2008 and the Environment Acts? Does he accept that that should not be optional, as the climate emergency is so urgent that it ought to be required by this Bill?

    Jeremy Quin

    That urgency is why we have published procurement policy notes on our commitment to net zero, just as we have published them on social value. We are keen for the Bill’s wording not to be very prescriptive, because the Government will have to announce procurement policies from time to time. I totally accept that there is a case for ensuring that our net zero commitments are met, but putting them in the Bill, which would create a big, laborious process for SMEs and procurers, be they local councils or central Government, is not the right way forward.

    This Bill sets out a strong framework that gives us far more powers, but it is then open to the Government to set out, through a national procurement policy statement, the focus on social value or environmental concerns. I hope the hon. Lady accepts that the procurement policy notes we have already published show our commitment to doing just that.

    Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)

    The Minister is being incredibly kind in giving way, and I recognise his generosity.

    What measures in the Bill will protect the supply chain from collapse, as we saw with Carillion? Project bank accounts, which are already used across Government, would protect the supply chain. Thousands of small businesses went out of business or lost hundreds of thousands of pounds during Carillion’s collapse, so will the Minister introduce something like that? There is also a question about protections for retention money, so will that be included?

    Jeremy Quin

    That is a matter not so much for the Bill as for the operation of commercial practice. The outsourcing playbook has been used effectively since Carillion, and we have since seen other examples of public suppliers getting into difficulty. They are carefully monitored across Government. We will not always spot everything, but there is close working across Government to monitor our suppliers and to ensure that we can act, and act swiftly, where a supplier falls into problems.

    Debbie Abrahams

    National Highways, for example, uses project bank accounts to protect its supply chain as a matter of course, and it says that they are its preferred option. If the Department associated with National Highways is doing that, why cannot they be used across all Government Departments?

    Jeremy Quin

    I am not familiar with the specifics of project bank accounts, to be perfectly frank. We have put measures in place to protect supply chains in the event of the collapse of a prime supplier, but I will take this up with my officials and write back to the hon. Lady.

    In recognition of the specific needs of defence and security procurement, and to help deliver the defence and security industrial strategy, a number of provisions specifically apply to defence and security contracts. These provisions will provide flexibility for contracts to be upgraded to refresh technology and avoid gaps in military capability. There will continue to be special rules for certain social, health and education services, to be identified in secondary legislation, that may be procured as so-called light touch contracts, recognising the particular domestic and social aspects that should be captured in such procurements.

    The interaction with regulations being prepared under the Health and Care Act 2022 was the subject of particular attention when the Bill was considered in the other place, and it may well be of interest to this House. The Bill will apply to most areas of NHS procurement of goods and services to help drive efficiency and value for money. However, the Health and Care Act regime is intended to address the specific requirements of the health and care system and to fulfil the Government’s intention to deliver greater collaboration and integration in the arrangement of clinical healthcare services.

    Let me be clear that the Bill strengthens the NHS’s ability to deliver. The reforms to healthcare commissioning in the Health and Care Act will give commissioners more flexibility in how they arrange services so that both procurement systems can work effectively and deliver care for patients.

    The Bill sets out the key principles and objectives of public procurement. These place value for money, public benefit, transparency and integrity at the heart of our procurement system. As well as competition and efficiency, there must be good management to prevent misconduct.

    Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)

    Public procurement is one key way in which the Government can set a framework whereby employers’ standards can be driven up and a good example can be given to other employers. So will the Minister accept an amendment that gives priority when awarding Government contracts to the many thousands of companies that pay their staff the real living wage?

    Jeremy Quin

    I do not think this is the process whereby we tell employers what they should be paying their employees; that would be a big reach too far. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased that this Bill contains provisions that ensure that we can prevent companies that commit misconduct from taking part in procurements, and that can be in any range of areas. However, this is not the Bill by which we are going to be regulating employees’ pay.

    John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)

    I welcome this Bill, particularly because, as the Minister rightly points out, it introduces far greater transparency and competition, precisely as I was calling for two years ago in the Government-commissioned report on competition policy. I am delighted to see the Bill coming forward with those measures. May I push him on value for money, which he mentions and which is clearly important? The evaluation task force, which exists jointly between his Department and the Treasury, is a tiny unit that covers a tiny fraction of Government procurement spending. Will he pledge, either today or later in the Bill’s progress, that its role will be expanded to cover far more of what we are buying, in order to make sure that we are buying things that genuinely work and it can say that things have been evaluated and either they have produced the goods or they have not, and therefore should or should not be renewed or rolled over in future?

    Jeremy Quin

    I thank my hon. Friend for the ideas he threw in our direction, which have been picked up. He is right to say that greater transparency is absolutely reflected in this Bill, and I thank him for the work he did. There has been a long lead-up to get to this Bill and we thank him very much for his support. I am proud of the evaluation task force and the work it does, not only on procurement, but on other areas of policy, looking into them to make certain that they are delivering what we intended when they were announced. That is an important tool for all Governments. I would love to see the evaluation task force grow. It is growing in experience and in the amount of projects it is taking on. It has covered a fair bit of the waterfront, but I appreciate that it is merely a small element at the moment and I would like to see it grow. However, he will forgive me if I do not start making commitments of that sort at the Dispatch Box—

    Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)

    When we talk about NHS procurement and the challenges for small and medium-sized enterprises in dealing with the NHS, we are talking about small companies dealing with a vast organisation. PolyPhotonix, a company in my constituency, gave me an example of the frustration involved. It created a light therapy mask to help treat diabetic retinopathy, and I have been supporting the company. The NHS procurement process has been extremely complex, although the company got the mask approved. There was NHS investment in innovation to develop it, but it became used in the private sector before the NHS, because the NHS procurement could not get it right or could not make the approvals. Those were finally obtained and the mask is now active, fabulous and a great product. The other NHS trusts all want to approve it themselves, so surely there is an opportunity here. If something is approved by one NHS trust, surely it does not need to be approved by every other one before it can be used. Is there some opportunity in the Bill to facilitate that greater ease for SMEs?

    Jeremy Quin

    I recognise the frustration of the company in my hon. Friend’s constituency. He should take up the specifics of that with my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary, but more generally he raises an extremely valuable point, not just in the health sector, but more broadly, about the ease of doing business with Government for SMEs. The Bill contains a range of measures on this: it puts a duty on procurers to ensure that they are considering the specific needs of SMEs; it ensures there is a 30-day payment period; it ensures that pipelines are put out well in advance; it says, “You don’t need to be insured to do the job before you have won it”; and, above all, it provides for one entry point and allows companies to set out in one place what they are as a smaller company before they even start thinking about the tender they are applying for. All those are incredibly valuable components to make it easier for an SME to thrive.

    Bill Esterson rose—

    Jeremy Quin

    I will not give way at this stage. I thank the hon. Gentleman for the offer, but I think I should be making a little more progress.

    In delivering value for money, the Bill will require procurement teams to take account of national priorities, as set out in a new national procurement policy statement. These are national priorities such as improving supply chain resilience, enhancing skills, driving innovation and, of course, protecting the environment. Procurers will be able to give greater weight to bids that support such priorities. I know that in the other place there is a strong desire to pursue particular interests and include a range of policies in the Bill. The Government instead believe that that is a purpose of the NPPS. We want to keep this legislation as clear and simple as possible; the intention is that we allow procurement to keep pace with evolving policy priorities and we do not swamp contractors and SMEs in paperwork.

    The Bill will accelerate spending with small businesses. New duties will require contracting authorities to have regard to SME participation. Public sector buyers will have to look at how they can remove bureaucratic barriers and level the playing field for smaller businesses. Commercial frameworks will be made more flexible, with the new concept of an open framework, which will allow for longer-term frameworks that are reopened at set points, so that small and emergent businesses are not shut out for long periods. These measures build on existing policy, which allows procurers to reserve competitions for contracts below the thresholds for SMEs and social enterprises based in the UK, taking full advantage of the new freedoms following our exit from the EU.

    We are determined to improve the prompt payment of small businesses in our supply chains. As I have mentioned, 30-day payment terms will apply contractually throughout the public sector supply chains and be implied into the contract, even when not specifically set out. The Bill provides for new improved procedures for the award of public contracts, supported by greater flexibility. Buyers will be able to design procurement processes that are fit for purpose and will create more opportunities to negotiate with suppliers so that the public sector can work in partnership with the private.

    We will also take tougher action on underperforming suppliers.

    Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)

    On partnership between the public and private sectors, the steel industry is a crucial aspect of that. Does the Minister agree that the Government should be looking to set indicative targets for the amount of domestically produced steel that we are putting into Government-funded projects? That would enable us as a country to make, buy and sell more in this country, which should surely be a strategic objective of the Bill.

    Jeremy Quin

    The hon. Gentleman treads a well-trodden path. Through steel procurement, we are always keen to set out the pipeline and provide every assistance we can to the domestic steel industry. However, as he knows, there are also international obligations, of which we are mindful and I know he will also be mindful, in respect of how we conduct our public procurement. I am not certain whether what he suggests would be consistent with the Government procurement agreement. [Interruption.] On pipelines, we are doing everything we can to help the domestic steel industry see the opportunities ahead of it and engage with public procurement. This is something we definitely and warmly appreciate.

    We will also take tougher action on underperforming suppliers or those who present risks through misconduct. The Bill puts in place a new exclusions framework that will make it easier to exclude suppliers that have underperformed on other contracts. Through the Bill, I am pleased to say that we are targeting those who benefit from the appalling practice of modern slavery and, in doing so, undermine our own industrial resilience. The Bill makes explicit provision to disregard bids from suppliers known to have used forced labour or to perpetuate modern slavery in their supply chain. Contracting authorities will now be able to exclude suppliers where there is appropriate evidence of wrongdoing, whether in the UK or overseas.

    Debbie Abrahams

    I wholeheartedly support the Minister on that. I want to take him back to a previous point about late payments and the 30-day term. How will the Government monitor those and ensure adherence? Will that be done through audited accounts? What will be the punishment if there is not adherence?

    Jeremy Quin

    Ultimately, this is contractual. On the prime, that is easy: we will be paying the prime contractor within the 30-day period. People in the supply chain will be aware of the contract under which they are supplying to the prime, and we expect that 30-day payment to trickle all the way down the chain. It is the first time that such a measure has been incorporated. It really will be for primes to be held to account. I say to hon. Members of this House that if partners to a contract are not being paid without good cause, it will call into doubt the contract with the prime supplier, so it will be very much in the interest of the prime supplier to deliver. Every effort the Government have made to improve the payment terms through the supply chains has so far been adhered to pretty well by industry. Across Government, we have seen a significant improvement in payments out to industry, and we are expecting a ripple-down effect as a result of the Bill.

    We will also create a new debarment list, accessible to all public sector organisations, which will list suppliers who must or may be excluded from contracts. This approach will ensure the high standards that we expect in the conduct of suppliers who benefit from public money. Embedded in the Bill is our commitment to creating an open and transparent system. Everyone will have access to public procurement data: citizens will be able to scrutinise spend against contracts; suppliers will be able to see the pipeline of upcoming contracts so that they can identify new opportunities and develop innovative solutions; and buyers will be able to analyse the market and benchmark their performance against others on, for example, their spend with small and medium-sized enterprises.

    The Bill contains key provisions to enable these new levels of transparency, along with the statutory obligation on the Government to deliver a single digital platform to host this data. The Bill will strengthen existing obligations on contracting authorities to identify and mitigate the conflicts of interest in procurement decision making. These new requirements will ensure that conflicts of interest are managed transparently and in such a way that maintains the integrity of the public procurement regime. Additional safeguards include mitigations that may be required of suppliers by contracting authorities and for procurement teams to record and maintain a written assessment of conflicts.

    In common with all procurement regimes, provision is made in the Bill for direct awards in a limited number of special circumstances—for example where extreme urgency means that there is no time to run a competition. Ministers will now be able to make provision for contracts required in a rare emergency event when action is necessary to protect life or public safety. This must be kept under review, revoked when no longer necessary, and is subject to the necessary parliamentary scrutiny in both Houses through the affirmative procedure. The Bill also requires that, before a contracting authority directly awards a public contract using any such regulations, a transparency notice must be published. These are major safeguards that did not previously exist.

    The Bill fully honours implementation of our international trade agreements, including the World Trade Organisation agreement on Government procurement, which provides UK businesses with access to procurement opportunities collectively worth an estimated £1.3 trillion per annum.

    Sir James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)

    The Minister mentions trade deals. Both the Australia and New Zealand trade deals have a large procurement element. That will fall away if the Bill becomes an Act. I note that the Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill has not yet received Second Reading in the other place. May I urge him to hold discussions with business managers with a view to manipulating things so that we get Royal Assent for this Bill rather than for the Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill to avoid the very small problem—a problem of just a few weeks—of trade deals being done within a new set of rules that will very quickly become obsolete?

    Jeremy Quin

    I thank my hon. Friend for a most ingenious comment. I had not considered the calendar of the two Bills. It is an interesting point. I will raise the matter with business managers.

    We will continue to support UK businesses so that they can continue to be successful in competing for public contracts in other countries around the world by protecting reciprocal arrangements and guaranteeing market access, treating each other’s suppliers on an equal and fair footing.

    Turning finally to territorial application, we have prepared the Bill in a spirit of co-operation between the nations of the United Kingdom. As part of the policy development process, we welcomed policy officials from Wales and Northern Ireland into our team so that they had a critical role in shaping this legislation from the very beginning. As a result, the general scope of the legislation applies to all contracting authorities in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. This will ensure that contracting authorities and suppliers can benefit from the efficiencies of having a broadly consistent regime operating across constituent parts of the UK.

    I regret to say that the Scottish Government have opted not to join the UK Government Bill and will retain their own procurement regulations in respect of devolved Scottish authorities. Many in the House will regret that and would no doubt welcome our Scottish friends joining the new regime, which will benefit taxpayers and public services alike across Scotland and the whole of the UK.

    There has never been a piece of UK procurement legislation as comprehensive as this. It is a large and technical Bill. I accept that there may be some areas that will merit further consideration, which we will debate in more detail in Committee, but I am confident that these significant reforms open up a new chapter for public procurement in this country and will boost business, spread opportunity and strengthen our Union. I urge all Members of this House to support the Bill.

  • Jeremy Quin – 2022 Statement on the Infected Blood Inquiry

    Jeremy Quin – 2022 Statement on the Infected Blood Inquiry

    The statement made by Jeremy Quin, the Minister for Cabinet Office, in the House of Commons on 15 December 2022.

    With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement to update the House on our preparations for the infected blood inquiry, which is expected to conclude next year.

    I took over as the Minister sponsoring the inquiry on 25 October. While I have been aware of this issue for many years, as have so many of us who have been contacted by affected constituents, undertaking this role has further impressed on me its scale and gravity—not only the direct, dreadful consequences for victims, but the stigma and trauma experienced by many of those infected, by their families, and by those who care for them. I recognise that, tragically, we continue to see victims of infected blood die prematurely, and I also recognise that time is of the essence.

    I commend the work of the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood. I am pleased to have met the co-chairs, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) and the Father of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), and I am grateful for their insight.

    In July 2017 my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) established the infected blood inquiry, chaired by Sir Brian Langstaff. My predecessor as Paymaster General, the current Leader of the House, went further by commissioning a study from Sir Robert Francis KC, which is entitled “Compensation and redress for the victims of infected blood: recommendations for a framework”. The purpose of the study was clear, namely to ensure that the Government were in a position to fully consider and act on the recommendations. Sir Robert delivered it in March this year.

    The Government had intended to publish a response alongside the study itself, ahead of Sir Robert’s evidence to Sir Brian Langstaff’s inquiry. However, as the then Paymaster General explained, the sheer complexity and wide range of factors revealed in Sir Robert’s excellent work meant that when the study was published by the Government on 7 June, it was not possible to publish a comprehensive response. The Government remained absolutely committed to using the study to prepare for the outcome of the Langstaff inquiry, and that is still the case.

    On 29 July, in response to Sir Robert’s recommendations, Sir Brian Langstaff published an interim report on interim compensation. It called for an interim payment of £100,000 to be paid to all those infected and all bereaved partners currently registered on UK infected blood support schemes, and to those who registered between 29 July and the inception of any future scheme. The Government accepted that recommendation in full on 17 August. Quite rightly, a huge amount of work was undertaken across Government during the ensuing weeks to ensure that the interim payments could be exempt from tax and disregarded for the purpose of benefits, and that an appropriate delivery mechanism existed. This involved work across many Departments, and with the devolved Governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Interim compensation is just one part of our overall response, but it was important that we got it right.

    I fully recognise that interim compensation was but one of the recommendations in Sir Robert’s study. I want to stress to the House and to the many people who have a direct and personal interest in the inquiry that those interim payments were only the start of the process, and work is ongoing in consideration of Sir Robert’s other recommendations. I am pleased that all the interim payments were made by the end of October. Sir Robert recognised in his study that the Government could not give in advance a commitment on the exact shape that redress will take. Our comprehensive response must await the final report of the infected blood inquiry. However, I want to assure those affected that this Government, which delivered a statutory inquiry and interim compensation, remain absolutely committed to our intentions in commissioning the compensation framework study. Accordingly, and recognising the need to continue to build trust with the affected community, I want to share with the House the progress we are making.

    A cross-Government working group, co-ordinated by the Cabinet Office, is taking forward work strands informed by Sir Robert’s recommendations. A cross-departmental group at permanent secretary level has been convened, chaired by the Cabinet Office second permanent secretary, Sue Gray, to oversee that work. I am pleased to be able to say that Sir Robert has agreed to provide independent transparent advice to the group as work progresses. I am grateful to him for his continued input into our thinking. It is my intention over the coming months to update the House on progress and, where it is possible, to provide greater clarity on the Government’s response to Sir Robert’s recommendations prior to Sir Brian’s report being published.

    In the meantime, I wish to make clear one critical answer to a recommendation posed by Sir Robert. In the first recommendation of his study, Sir Robert sets out that there is in his view a moral case for compensation to be paid. The Government accept that recommendation. There is a moral case for the payment of compensation. We have made that clear in our actions with the payment of interim compensation. I now want to make it equally clear on the Floor of the House. The Government recognise that the scheme utilised must be collaborative and sympathetic, and as user-friendly, supportive and free of stress as possible, while being consistent with the Government’s approach to protect against fraud. The Government will ensure those principles are adopted.

    We have significant work to do to ensure we are ready for Sir Brian’s report. For example, Sir Robert makes detailed findings and recommendations about the delivery of the scheme, which must be worked through in discussion with the devolved Administrations. Work will need to be undertaken to ensure, in line with his recommendation, that final compensation can be made free of tax and disregarded for benefits purposes.

    We know, too, that the inquiry will make recommendations in relation to bereaved parents and children. In his interim report, Sir Brian made clear his view that the moral case for their compensation is beyond doubt. Sir Brian recognised that the approach to compensating this group of people is complex and the Government must be ready to quickly address recommendations relating to them. The work in consideration of the study will ensure that the Government are prepared to act swiftly in response to Sir Brian Langstaff’s final recommendations relating to compensation.

    Those infected and affected have suffered enough. Having commissioned both the inquiry and the report, the Government have further shown their commitment in our actions by the payment of interim compensation. Sir Brian and Sir Robert have both ensured that the voices of those infected and affected are front and centre of their work, and I, too, hope to be able to meet and hear from people directly affected as our work progresses. We have much to do, but I wish to assure the House—this is why I wished to be here today—that this is a priority for the Government and we will continue to progress it. I commend this statement to the House.

  • Jeremy Quin – 2022 Speech on Documents Relating to Suella Braverman

    Jeremy Quin – 2022 Speech on Documents Relating to Suella Braverman

    The speech made by Jeremy Quin, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, in the House of Commons on 9 November 2022.

    It is, as ever, a pleasure to reply to the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper). I was pleased to hear from the Chairwoman of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), that her Committee visited Manston today and saw, I assume, at first hand the improvements there. What a pity we are not discussing that today. What a pity we are not discussing the many pressing issues on matters of home affairs. What a pity that the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford did not choose to talk about policing and the matters that affect the people on the streets of this country. I know how disappointed my hon. and right hon. Friends in the Home Office will be that they have not had the opportunity to cross swords with her this afternoon. Instead, she has chosen to debate this motion—a motion for return. She ranged far and wide, touching on rumour and speculation but rarely on the specifics of the motion, and I was grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your guidance.

    However, I am pleased with the debate. In the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), we heard that, somehow, a self-confessed error of judgment relating to an email not on an issue of national security represents exceptional circumstances, in the view of the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford, but that, in the last Government, the fact that this country was going to war did not represent exceptional circumstances, according to the right hon. Lady.

    I would like to bring the debate back to the motion before the House. In her letter to the Home Affairs Committee on 31 October, the Home Secretary set out in considerable detail the circumstances and sequence of events that led to her resignation. She explained that she made “an error of judgment”. She recognised her mistake and took accountability for her actions. Her letter noted that the draft written ministerial statement

    “did not contain any information relating to national security”.

    As I set out to the House in response to the urgent question tabled by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford, the ministerial code allows for a range of sanctions in the event that a breach has occurred. In the light of the breach, the Home Secretary stepped down and her resignation was accepted by the then Prime Minister. The appointment of Ministers is a matter for the Prime Minister, in line with his role as the sovereign’s principal adviser. On appointing the Home Secretary to the Government, he received assurances from her. He was clear that she had recognised her error and had accepted the consequences. He considered that the matter was closed. He was pleased to be able to bring the Home Secretary, with her undoubted drive and commitment, back into Government and to be working with her to make our streets safer and to control our borders —matters that could have been discussed this afternoon.

    I understand the desire to see inside the process of ministerial appointments and to make public discussions that may form part of any appointment. However, there are compelling and common-sense reasons why that desire should be resisted.

    Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)

    Many a person who has gone through our court system will get 12 months’ probation. Why is six days good enough for the Home Secretary?

    Jeremy Quin

    I do not know the cases to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Every case must be looked at on a case-by-case basis. What we are dealing with here is a circumstance in which a breach of the ministerial code happened. The Home Secretary accepted that. She acknowledged her error; it will not happen again. The Prime Minister had to take a judgment on that basis, and he did.

    Dame Meg Hillier

    Once again, the Government have put out the man who defends anything, however bad it is, to speak for them. This is not just a matter of a security leak; it is a fundamental matter of the judgment of the woman who is responsible for our national security—the Minister cannot just brush it under the carpet as a six-day matter. The Home Secretary’s judgment is at stake, and there is no evidence that that judgment is any better today than it was when she made these leaks.

    Jeremy Quin

    The Home Secretary does not deny that it was an error of judgment; she made that absolutely clear in her letter to the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North, the Chairman of the Select Committee. It was an error of judgment; she recognised that error of judgment, she apologised for it and it will not be repeated.

    However, coming back to the motion for return, it is critical to the functioning of government that conversations that occur around appointments are able to take place in confidence. There is therefore a long-standing practice, implemented by Governments of all political persuasions, of protecting that confidentiality. Without the ability to speak freely ahead of an appointment on matters that will be personal, that can be sensitive and that can even relate to personal security, the ability for meaningful advice to be delivered would be massively undermined. Individuals being considered for appointment need to know that they can speak freely and without reservation to the Prime Minister and officials, and if necessary share concerns, without the prospect of confidential information being placed into the public domain.

    I wish to reassure hon. Members that appointments in Government are of course subject to advice on matters of propriety. In the formation of this Government, the usual reshuffle procedures were followed, as is appropriate, but the Government firmly and resolutely believe that any information relating to those procedures is not appropriate for publication, either now or in the future.

    Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)

    After the recent chaos and crashing of the economy, I was most heartened when I heard the Prime Minister declaring to the country that he would be conducting proceedings with integrity and professionalism. Yet the day after, he appointed as his Home Secretary somebody who had to be removed from Government just six days earlier for having breached the ministerial code, and now he has included in his Cabinet somebody who was sacked from office for leaking information from the National Security Council. So much for national security and acting with integrity and in the national interest. Does the Minister agree that the British public will simply conclude that it is the same old Tories, making the same old grubby deals to desperately cling on to power?

    Jeremy Quin

    The hon. Gentleman’s intervention started so well. Like him, I greatly appreciated the words of the Prime Minister on the steps of Downing Street. He set out clearly what his Administration would stand for, and he was right to do so. He made it absolutely clear that Ministers in his Administration will have to adhere to the ministerial code. That is what is expected of us all.

    I also believe there is a role for redemption. The Home Secretary made it clear that she had made an error, she apologised for that error, and she gave assurances to the Prime Minister, who is at liberty in forming his Administration to take a view and to decide to give someone a second chance. It is his right and his ability as Prime Minister to take those decisions.

    Yvette Cooper

    The Minister is very kind in giving way. He will know that it has been reported in the papers that the Home Secretary, when she was Attorney General, was interviewed as part of several leak inquiries. Has the Minister seen the conclusions of those leak inquiries, and did the Prime Minister see the conclusions of those leak inquiries before he made the appointment decision?

    Jeremy Quin

    The right hon. Lady turns to leak investigations, to which I was also about to turn my remarks. As she knows, it has been the policy of successive Governments not to comment on the specific details of leak investigations, to protect the sensitive techniques and procedures involved. What I can say is that all Ministers and the officials and advisers who support them most closely have, on occasion, access to large amounts of sensitive Government information. Regrettably, at times, some of this information is leaked. When this happens and inquiries are launched, all individuals in Government who had access to the information would fall within the scope of such an inquiry. That does not mean that they are guilty or necessarily personally even under investigation; it means simply that they had access to the information in question.

    The Home Secretary has given a full account of, and has taken responsibility for, the events that led up to her resignation. The Prime Minister is satisfied with that account and considers the matter closed. We believe that the proposal in this motion is inappropriate and would set a deeply injurious precedent for important procedures, not only now but long into the future. I know that the right hon. Lady is upset that Home Office Ministers are not in the Chamber to debate with her this afternoon, but she could have chosen this evening to debate the Labour approach to stopping small boat crossings, which I am sure would have been enlightening for us all. She could have chosen to debate the fact that this Government have recruited over 15,300 extra police. Labour Members could have probed the campaign that has closed 2,400 county lines, with over 8,000 related arrests. Instead, they are concentrating not on home affairs but on a fishing expedition. I trust the House will reject the attempt.

  • Jeremy Quin – 2022 Statement on the Personal Conduct of Suella Braverman

    Jeremy Quin – 2022 Statement on the Personal Conduct of Suella Braverman

    The statement made by Jeremy Quin, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, in the House of Commons on 26 October 2022.

    I was disappointed, on leaving my previous Department last night, that I would no longer be seeing the right hon. Lady across the Dispatch Box, and I am so glad that she has put that right for me today. She has a good memory, and I know she will recall that last week the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office—my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Brendan Clarke-Smith)—said, in responding to a question that she had tabled, that questions relating to

    “breaches of the ministerial code”

    or related issues

    “are a matter for the Cabinet Office, not the Home Office”.—[Official Report, 22 October 2022; Vol. 720, c. 834.]

    That is why I, not the Home Secretary, am here answering the question today.

    My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw set out the circumstances regarding the departure of the Home Secretary last week. The Home Secretary made an error of judgment. She recognised her mistake, and she took responsibility for her actions. The ministerial code allows for a range of sanctions when mistakes have been made. The Home Secretary recognised her mistake, raised the matter and stepped down. Her resignation was accepted by the then Prime Minister.

    The right hon. Lady will be aware that ministerial appointments are a matter solely for the Prime Minister, as the sovereign’s principal adviser on the appointment, dismissal and acceptance of resignations of Ministers. The Prime Minister was very clear in his speech to the nation yesterday when he said:

    “This government will have integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level.”

    He has said that he will work “day in, day out” to earn the trust of the country and live up to the demands and expectations that the public rightly have of their Prime Minister. The Prime Minister expects all Ministers to uphold the values and standards set by the ministerial code, as the public would rightly expect.

    As I have said, the Home Secretary made an error of judgment. She recognised her mistake, and she took accountability for her actions in stepping down. After consideration, the Prime Minister has decided, given the apology issued by the Home Secretary, to reappoint her to the Government. They are now focused, together, on working to make our streets safer and to control our borders. However, while we should learn from mistakes, we should also look to the future, and the Prime Minister has appointed a team of Ministers to lead the country through the issues that it faces.

    All Ministers are bound by the ministerial code, and the Prime Minister expects his Ministers to uphold the code and hold the highest standards. As I have noted, the code allows for a range of sanctions for breaches, and on the recommendation of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the code was updated in May to make that clear. On an ongoing basis, we will need—every Minister—through our actions and in how we conduct ourselves, to demonstrate that we can continue to command this Prime Minister’s confidence as we tackle the huge challenges that are to come for the country.

  • Jeremy Quin – 2022 Statement on the Casey Review

    Jeremy Quin – 2022 Statement on the Casey Review

    The statement made by Jeremy Quin, the Minister of State at the Home Office on 18 October 2022.

    In September we saw the very best of British policing, in the planning, handling and delivery of the operation following the death of Her late Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II. It showed that, at the top of its game, British policing is world-class and I commend all of the thousands of officers and staff who made that happen. But in recent years there have been several high-profile failings. These failings substantially diminished public trust in the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), and undermine the incredible work of the overwhelming majority of decent, hard-working, and professional, frontline police officers.

    The Metropolitan Police Service commissioned a review by Baroness Louise Casey into the culture and standards of the Metropolitan Police Service. Interim findings have now been reported to the MPS and are highly concerning. They set out a failure of the MPS to operate within the existing misconduct framework, and failures to adequately tackle instances of sexual misconduct and discrimination.

    The impetus and action to deliver change must come from within the MPS first and foremost—and the Government welcome Sir Mark Rowley’s determination to take a systematic approach to act on the findings through both robust enforcement and long-term prevention. Where there is a role for Government to support this, we will not hesitate to act. That is why I am announcing an internal review into the process of police dismissals to raise standards and confidence in policing across England and Wales.

    The Government will work closely with key policing stakeholders to examine evidence of the effectiveness of the system to remove those who are not fit to serve the public. As well as examining the overall effectiveness of dismissal arrangements, I expect the review to consider:

    the impact of the introduction of legally qualified chairs to decide misconduct cases;

    whether decisions made by misconduct panels are consistent across all 43 forces in England and Wales;

    and whether forces are making effective use of their powers to dismiss officers on probation.

    This focused review will be launched shortly and will be conducted swiftly. It will focus on key issues and will support those in policing who act with utmost professionalism, giving them confidence that their hard work and commitment will not be undone by those who bring their profession into disrepute.

  • Jeremy Quin – 2022 Comments on County Lines Programme

    Jeremy Quin – 2022 Comments on County Lines Programme

    The comments made by Jeremy Quin, the Home Office Minister, on 24 September 2022.

    I want victims of exploitation to know that we are on their side – and that there is a way out, a brighter future available.

    Since 2019, the government’s county lines programme has shut down 2,400 lines, made over 8,000 arrests and engaged more than 9,500 individuals through safeguarding interventions.

    These services will be relentless in their focus to carve out safe routes home for young people in danger and tear them away from the grip of these merciless county lines gangs, opening up their futures once more.

  • Jeremy Quin – 2022 Bearskins Clarification Statement

    Jeremy Quin – 2022 Bearskins Clarification Statement

    The statement made by Jeremy Quin, the Minister for Defence Procurement, in the House of Commons on 5 September 2022.

    On 11 July in a debate in Westminster Hall on bearskins, I referred to data on potential faux fur products that had previously been shared with the Department, but I also stated that the Ministry of Defence had not received recent results data. Whilst my statement was in line with advice I had received, further work has revealed that this was not correct, and I wish to correct the record.

    In May 2022 a letter was sent to the Prime Minister by PETA, copying Defence Ministers, enclosing a report against two of the five initial criteria that faux fur would have to meet in order for further work to be done to consider it as a replacement for the guardsmen’s caps. This was passed to officials in the Ministry of Defence, who responded on 15 June 2022 requesting that the report should be sent by the organisation that had conducted the tests direct to our partner, Leidos. We understand an email containing the report was sent but was blocked by Leidos’s spam filters and deleted. Subsequent to the debate, the email was re-sent, copying the MOD. After the MOD forwarded a copy to Leidos it was safely received.

    To date, the Ministry of Defence has not seen a set of verifiable data that demonstrates a single sample of faux fur meets the five criteria. We are aware of testing that was carried out in December 2020 by an accredited testing house against three of the criteria, although the material only passed one of those tests: water penetration. As I have explained, we are also aware of further testing, conducted in April 2022. The MOD does not believe from the information we have seen that the organisation that conducted those tests is accredited by either the UK Accreditation Service or the International Laboratory Accreditation Co-operation. In order to consider taking any proposed product forward, we need test results that have been conducted by an independent and accredited testing house.

    Consequently, we have not to date seen evidence that a suitable faux fur product exists to be considered as an alternative.

    Currently, the foot guards’ ceremonial caps are sourced exclusively from Canada, which is a regulated market and a declared party to the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora. A CITES permit is required for the export of pelts from Canada to the United Kingdom. Canadian and international laws provide strict trade regulations to protect against unlawful trade in black bears, both within Canada and internationally. No bears are hunted to order for the Ministry of Defence; pelts are a product of legal and licensed hunting authorised in Canada by provincial and territorial Governments with the goal of long-term population sustainability.

  • Jeremy Quin – 2022 Speech at the RUSI Conference

    Jeremy Quin – 2022 Speech at the RUSI Conference

    The speech made by Jeremy Quin, the Defence Procurement Minister, on 7 July 2022.

    Some of you may have wondered whether this event would proceed this morning. Thank you for keeping the faith and being here.

    All of us in Defence have a profound sense of the weight of responsibility in undertaking the tasks with which we are charged even in the most difficult of circumstances.

    From a personal perspective I think the Prime Minister has shown enormous leadership on Ukraine which will be a lasting legacy and he has proved a good friend for defence. I wholly understand why he is now stepping down, it is the right decision, and I wish him well.

    Now to Defence. We meet in historic times and I am delighted that the process of Nato ratification of Finnish and Swedish accession is underway with Canada the first to complete the process so far.

    I have visited Finland on several occasions as Defence Minister especially in the run up to their HX competition.

    I confess to being delighted yet bemused by being engaged in earnest debate on the differential performance of F35, Grippen and Eurofighter not just by the Finnish Government but by a Helsinki taxi driver and a wide array of Finnish citizens.

    It transpired that a considerable number of the men and women on the Helsinki omnibus knew all about the munitions carriage and stealth in modern combat air, such is their personal focus on their nation’s defence – and for good reason.

    While debate of this nature in the United Kingdom is rather more muted, I learned early on in my role that a Defence Procurement Minister can rely on strong and informed debate via the medium of Twitter.

    There is often complete agreement on Twitter than an issue must be aired if a less uniform view on how it should be concluded.

    Underpinning all such debates, RUSI has remained supreme in offering detailed and considered views on defence. I have often said that our defence industry is a strategic national asset. Without comparing the two in terms of scale I have no doubt I can say the same of RUSI.

    It has been a constant through a great deal of change. Including changes in Defence Procurement Ministers. In the two calendar years prior to my appointment in February 2020 no fewer than 5 Defence Procurement Ministers held office.

    No wonder in the introductory call with my German counterpart he warmly welcomed me and I quote “to the plushest ejector seat in UK Defence.”

    I feel today, two and half years in, the same excitement and determination I did on day one. It is an extraordinary role it is a privilege to serve – and above all to have the opportunity to work with truly excellent and committed colleagues in and out of uniform.

    Unlike my Commons Defence Ministerial colleagues who have all served their country on the front line of combat operations and done so with distinction, the nearest I have got to action was serving in the treasury during the financial crisis and the whips office during Brexit.

    However, we are all at our strongest working in teams and I indebted to the huge support of the Defence Secretary who is doing an outstanding job and all my ministerial colleagues.

    My 25 years of experience in business before entering parliament means I often start a debate on procurement from a different perspective but we invariably come to the same conclusion –

    We recognise Core skills.

    Fundamental focus on the tasks we need to meet.

    Ruthless prioritisation within budget.

    Working with suppliers through partnership.

    Creating and retaining the Skills base we need to deliver.

    One learns early on that Defence Procurement isn’t easy.

    We are delivering “Some of the most technically complicated, risky and costly procurements in Government.”

    Not my words but those of the NAO.

    Whilst our national debates are not as active as those on the Helsinki omnibus, defence procurement can occasionally hit the news and, if I may share a secret with you, that’s not hugely when projects are going well.

    From some of the commentary, one could be forgiven for believing that every defence procurement is late and every project is over budget.

    In point of fact nearly three quarters of DE&S projects have already delivered or are expected to hit their original P50 cost estimate. In a world dominated by covid and supply chain hold-ups, over half of DE&S projects have been or are expected to be on their P50 estimated delivery time – and this audience is wise to the fact that by definition not all projects will come in within a P50 estimate.

    In addition, since 2016 we have made £5.9 billion of independently assured efficiencies on our Equipment plan – genuine improvements with the same output being delivered for lower cost.

    The DPAG which was established through the Spending Round, has met regularly since has recognised a changed MOD with greater clarity and transparency – determined to recognise and fix issues, not hide them.

    However, and especially on delivery the overall position is of course not where we want it to be, there is room for huge improvement and I am determined that the reforms we are driving will deliver just that – but this is a solid base from which to drive performance.

    The reasons why we must get better are legion, but the pressing current is all too obvious.

    Since 1989 our belief in what the collapse of the Berlin Wall presaged has dictated the size of not just our forces but has driven changes to the structure, capability and even the expectations that we place upon our entire Defence sector.

    As the Secretary of State has said, the way we’ve been doing defence for the last three decades is no longer adequate for the threats we are facing today.

    We thankfully got ahead of the game in recognising the changed world when the Prime Minister took the strong decision to invest an extra £24 billion in Defence in 2020.

    And we are even more thankful that last Thursday the Prime Minister went one step further by making clear that the critical capabilities we are pursuing in defence from FCAS to AUKUS mean that we will reach 2.5% of GDP by the end of the decade.

    We need to ensure that not only will the equipment procured be deployed effectively by all our armed forces, including as vividly set out by the new CGS through “Operation Mobilise”. We need to ensure we deliver that equipment on time on budget and to the very best of our ability.

    All of which brings me right back to procurement.

    Given the scale of the task ahead an eye-catching route would be to seize the opportunity for a “review”.

    I dare say this would immediately get plaudits and Defence would be praised for recognising historic issues and seeking external insight as to how we meet fresh challenges.

    Except I don’t think that’s getting after the issues at all. I fear that’s hiding from them. After all we’ve been round this buoy before, many times actually, we’ve had 13 reviews in one form or other of defence procurement in the last 30 years.

    We know what happens. We have seen it in public and private sector alike. The self-absorption of the process. The inertia while its conducted. Good people getting frustrated. The less good eagerly awaiting a game of musical chairs when the distracting music finally stops.

    In all the analysis I have seen, of international comparators, or different structural options here in the UK the one point that has stood out is that there is no nirvana.

    Every model set up to deliver equipment, equipment which has never previously been created before but which may be needed in service for decades and which will depends on multiple untested linkages, will be vulnerable to the challenge of delivering those projects.

    There is no single bullet. In the same way that our uniformed colleagues succeed by constant work, upskilling, agility and attention to detail we need to do the same.

    We know what the challenges are.

    We know what we need to do to overcome them.

    It’s often the small things that derail big projects. When the Apollo 13 mission was aborted the problem turned out to be something as small as damaged electrical wire insulation.

    Sometimes you don’t need to overhaul the whole system. You just need to fix the wiring.

    And our approach to procurement requires a remorseless focus on getting the basics right.

    First making the structure of what we do as clear and simple as possible, junking unnecessary bureaucracy and injecting flexibility and agility into our processes. We are doing just this through the Procurement Bill which is wending its way through the Lords now and is a cast iron exemplar of our commitment to ongoing sensible reform.

    Secondly take skills. If our people are going to be working on the most sophisticated projects around, we are going need to make sure they are better trained, more experienced and have more time to dedicate to the task.

    So that’s what we’ve been doing.

    Our Senior Responsible Officers for all our major projects are now required to complete the Infrastructure and Projects Authority’s Major Projects Leadership Academy.

    Around 40% of major projects currently meet or exceed the 50% SRO time commitment, up from 23% previously and we are determined that this upward trajectory must continue.

    We are encouraging commands to consider rank-ranged posts to enable SROs to be promoted within a project and also to align military SRO postings with key project milestones.

    We are determined to create a broader bench of SROs, civilian and military, growing experience over time so that we have people able to better deliver for us in the years ahead.

    And we’re investing in skills more broadly.

    All of the most senior DE&S finance and accounting staff now have professional Chartered Accounting qualifications.

    While more than 80% of our commercial staff are qualified with the Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply (CIPS) or are studying for their qualifications, and we also have a finance graduate development programme and a finance apprentice scheme.

    Meanwhile, to streamline our approvals processes we are developing new approaches and tools to support proportionate, risk-based, assurance activity. This ensures our effort is focused in the highest risk areas, so we can continue to take robust, evidence-based investment decisions.

    Programmes such as the Vehicle Storage and Support Programme have used these new approaches to save time and drive pace in delivery.

    Reducing time on bureaucracy saves time and money and I know that the more we are seen to deliver the greater will be the trust in defence in the Cabinet Office and Treasury and the more we can in turn reduce timelines external to the Department.

    But the hardest things to fix in any organisation are not the practical problems but the cultural ones.

    These are issues which span both defence and the industry –

    I have spoken on occasion at Staff College courses and one of the things with which I have been struck is how these brilliant and committed officers have been imbued with a sense throughout their service career that you don’t go to Higher Command with a problem, you go with a solution. Don’t second guess, find a solution and deliver.

    We all get that on operations but procurement works to different rules.

    When you are ordering state of the art weaponry which has never previously been manufactured the one thing you can guarantee is that there will be problems.

    Raising concerns, seeking external advice, ensuring issues are addressed not hidden. That is what we require from our procurement teams.

    One example of where, faced by externally created issues, we let ourselves down comes through in the Ajax Health and Safety Report. And we know that Ajax is not unique.

    So, we need to learn these lessons… We need to be open… We need to be honest with each other… We need to share.

    On Ajax we have commissioned a further review by Clive Sheldon QC and I have no doubt we have valuable lessons to implement.

    So, we can tighten up our own act to be better customers but it takes two to make a partnership work.

    This is one of the core emphases of DSIS which the thoughts of RUSI over many years have been incorporated in the work we did in taking DSIS forward.

    Not only do we have DSIS but many sub-sector reports from AI to the Land Industrial Strategy that have followed.

    Underpinned as they all are by the Equipment Plan (which I will remind you for the first time in years according to the NAO is not unaffordable!) and by the Defence Capability Framework which was published yesterday setting out our plans for military capability development.

    Defence has never been more transparent in setting out how we believe we can address emerging threats nor more open about seeking the engagement of industry and academia in meeting them.

    Through the Defence Command Paper we have deleted programmes we can’t afford and we are focusing on the projects we need to deliver and we know we can finance.

    We are investing in capabilities that will be delivered, at pace with certainty that spiral upgrades will follow– maintaining skills, maintaining R&D and maintaining joint working long after FOC. Front Line Commands need to know that they will not only get good kit into service but that perfection can be delivered overtime rather than overburdening the camel at the start of its journey with far too many straws.

    Industry needs to deliver on the open architectures and room for development that we all know are vital to enabling spiral development and accessing a wider eco-system of providers.

    We are doing our bit on investment in R&D, the long decline over 30 years has already been checked and reversed. This is surely as leading an indicator as there can be about our seriousness to deliver – £6.6 billion of ringfenced funding to drive forward the game-changing ideas of the future.

    And we know the game has evolved. 50 years ago, if my predecessors had a challenge they could bring five companies into the office and discuss who’d be best at bashing bits of metal together to make a better bit of metal.

    But these days the answers to our future needs could just as easily be found in a university lab, or any number of brilliant SMEs.

    We know we need to harvest wider ingenuity than ever before and we have seen that it works.

    Working in partnership through our new Regional Defence Clusters across the UK, at the brandnew Defence Battlelab, at the newly created Newcastle AI Hub among other defence centres of excellence to produce the goods.

    In the last five years our Defence and Security Accelerator (DASA) has provided over £180 million worth of funding for more than 1,000 projects, 58% of which were awarded to SMEs.

    Our Defence Technology Exploitation Programme will help support these SMEs to work with Primes to deliver their brilliant thinking to the front line.

    As I set out in the SME Action Plan earlier this year we have already increased SMEs shares of our procurement spend from 16 to 23 per cent and there is further to go.

    One of the joys of working with SMEs is their sheer agility

    Technology is evolving quickly and we need to be able to mobilise quickly to harness these new ideas and get them into the hands of the users. We do this in response to urgent requirements as a matter of course.

    Over the last 120 days I have seen one SME taking the early concept of some serious military equipment through contract to mass production and delivery. I have seen dozens of others produce brilliant ideas for our Ukraine Innovation challenge which we are going through right now.

    Evidence from Ukraine is that low value capabilities adapted quickly from the commercial market can have an asymmetric and significant effect on the battlefield.

    In these situations, we have shown that we can change our procurement and certification risk appetite and adapt to the circumstances.

    We need this approach to become more mainstream in procurement and free up our acquisition professionals to think outside the box and incentivised to deliver.

    There are not many positive stories written about defence acquisition – you all know that in this room – and this has driven a risk averse culture through the organisation – nobody enjoys being constitutionally quite properly put through the ringer at select committee.

    But the fact is that if we are to get ahead, then we need to take measured risk and accept that not everything will be always be delivered to plan.

    In the new world we have to take risks and be willing to move on when projects hit the buffers.

    I enjoy having meetings when SROs tell me that all is well.

    I enormously respect SROs who come to me in candour to explain the problems their work has exposed – whether that means projects are rated RED or Amber and we know what we must to do turn them around.

    Or ultimately when we know it’s time to pull the plug, fail fast and reinvest.

    Problems will happen it’s how we respond to those problems that matters.

    And to have the right kit we need to take risks and we need industry to deliver.

    Let’s be clear back in 1937, to use General Patrick’s comparator, there was no doubt why we needed a strong on-shore Defence industry.

    And once again the need for the West in general and the UK in particular to be able to churn out quality kit to meet our needs is very stark.

    It is very clear to the British people that we need armed forces to deter our adversaries and that we need them to be supplied reliably, swiftly and effectively.

    But there is more than that in the equation and that points to the national security that is delivered through national prosperity.

    I am so pleased that the JEDHub Annual Economic Report has set out clearly the distinct and vital role that is played by defence in our wider economy. This is just the base from which I am confident we will see rapid growth in the years ahead.

    JEDHub revealed a growing sector, delivering greater productivity than wider manufacturing, growing investment in skills and R&D. A sector enmeshed in exports with nearly 40 per cent of surveyed jobs supported by international business. A sector which distributes jobs and prosperity right across our Union.

    A sector which we are ensuring through the application of social value in our tenders is delivering not just critical capability but more widely for our country.

    Our national agenda for levelling up and strengthening our Union is vital and every part of our country will benefit as we invest in our own defence and help secure the overseas orders and partnerships, supported where appropriate with G2G packages, UKEF funding and critically a joined up approach across Government which pulls in support from our brilliant armed forces.

    Not only is the UK rightly perceived as producing battle winning kit we are a country with whom the world, including many who had previously looked to our adversaries’ inventory, wishes to do businesses.

    I am proud that traditional strengths in combat air is being matched by a renaissance in naval shipbuilding and other areas of UK capability as we regain momentum in a growing world market.

    I want to finish by reiterating a fundamental point.

    Our on-shore defence industry is a national asset it bestows wider benefits on our economy and critical capabilities to our armed forces. It can deliver exports and defence diplomacy and engagement. It helps keep us safe.

    We need them to continue to lift their sights and take risk.

    Our demand signal, bolstered by export opportunity, is the clearest signal one could imagine of the opportunity ahead.

    We look forward to seeing the fruits of industry’s investment in skills, capacity, R&D and export campaigns and in return we will be supporting them through clarity of purpose, investment in defence science and technology and the full gamut of support to access UK and international markets.

    We will continue in defence procurement to work with industry tirelessly to deliver the multiple improvements which together will guarantee more agile and reliable programmes on which we can all rely.