UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Patricia Gibson – 2022 Parliamentary Question on Student Finance Rules and Young People’s Social Mobility

    Patricia Gibson – 2022 Parliamentary Question on Student Finance Rules and Young People’s Social Mobility

    The parliamentary question asked by Patricia Gibson, the SNP MP for North Ayrshire and Arran, in the House of Commons on 28 November 2022.

    Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)

    What assessment she has made of the potential effect of changes to student finance rules on young people’s social mobility. (902426)

    The Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)

    We have always believed that anyone who wants to, and can benefit from it, should get access to a world-class higher education. Since we took over from Labour, 18-year-olds from disadvantaged backgrounds are 82% more likely to enter full-time higher education—that is for 2021 compared with 2010. Our reforms will make student loans more sustainable and fairer for graduates and taxpayers, and will help to boost learning across a lifetime, not just in universities. A full equality impact assessment of the changes has been conducted and was published on 24 February.

    Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)

    In his autumn statement, the Chancellor spoke for nearly an hour but failed to mention students once. The Office for National Statistics reports that three in 10 students are skipping lectures to save money and a quarter have taken on new debt because of the dire economic situation. Why are the Government neglecting students who are buckling under the pressure of the cost of living crisis?

    Gillian Keegan

    I assure the hon. Lady that the Chancellor did mention teaching and all our teaching staff, which of course includes university teaching staff. My Department continues to work with the Office for Students to ensure that universities support students in hardship by drawing on the £261 million student premium. Any student who is struggling should speak to their university about the support it offers. Many universities are doing a fantastic job to provide further support: the University of Leeds has increased its student financial assistance fund almost fivefold to £1.9 million; Queen Mary University of London has a bursary scheme for lower-income families; and Buckinghamshire New University has kept its accommodation rates for halls of residence at pre-pandemic levels, so a lot of support is on hand for students.

  • Dehenna Davison – 2022 Speech on the Death of Awaab Ishak and Rochdale Boroughwide Housing

    Dehenna Davison – 2022 Speech on the Death of Awaab Ishak and Rochdale Boroughwide Housing

    The speech made by Dehenna Davison, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, on 24 November 2022.

    I thank the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) for securing this incredibly important debate and for his heartfelt contribution. Seeing a case like this has shocked all of us right across the country. To have it happen in his constituency must feel incredibly personal, so I am grateful to him for raising it with the House today.

    I know that Members across the House and people right across the country were, and still are, completely horrified by the monumental failings that led to the death of a small boy before he even reached his second birthday. As Members have rightly highlighted, Awaab’s parents had repeatedly raised their concerns about the dire state of their home with their landlord, the local housing association Rochdale Boroughwide Housing, only for those multiple and repeated complaints to fall on deaf ears. Instead of acting on the clear evidence of damp and mould, Awaab’s family were given no choice but to raise their young boy in a mould-infested flat. Rochdale Boroughwide Housing’s failure to heed the family’s pleas—pleas made by Awaab’s father as early as 2017—was an awful dereliction of duty. If that failure in itself was not bad enough, the apparent attempts by Rochdale Boroughwide Housing to assign blame for the damp to the actions of Awaab’s parents were insensitive and deeply unprofessional.

    As was raised by the hon. Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford), the comments about “lifestyle” were completely unacceptable. The housing ombudsman was absolutely right to squash that assertion, reiterating that damp and mould in rented housing is not a lifestyle issue. Members today have highlighted that prejudice. It is our duty, as Members of this House and as Government Ministers, to call out any behaviour rooted in ignorance and prejudice. I take this opportunity to extend my sincere thanks to the coroner, Joanne Kearsley, who undertook a vital public service in her meticulous piecing together of the facts behind this devastating incident.

    Nothing will bring back the life of Awaab, but this investigation has given us all a chance to deliver some small justice to the parents of this young boy and to enact reforms that help us provide the high-quality social housing that this country desperately needs. I know I speak for everyone when I say that blaming nuances and technicalities will not wash. What took place in Rochdale were monumental, inexcusable failings. As the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities told the House last week, we have acted quickly and decisively off the back of the coroners’ findings and are continuing to push for urgent explanations and action from those involved.

    First, we demanded answers from the chair and the chief executive of Rochdale Boroughwide Housing. Much of the accountability clearly sits with the leadership of RBH. My right hon. Friend was spot on when he said that it “beggared belief” that the now former chief executive Gareth Swarbrick attempted to stay in post. While it is right that RBH recognised that the chief executive’s position was no longer tenable, the housing mutual still has serious questions to answer about the basic condition of its housing stock. My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson) said that even today he is still discovering new cases of terrible conditions within that housing stock. I would be grateful if he, and other Members with such examples, shared them with us in the Department.

    Tony Lloyd

    We are very much in the same place on this. What is astonishing is that, two years on from Awaab’s death, one would think that mould in these properties would be such a high priority that it would be hard to find. In fact, if the Minister walks around the estate with me or the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton, she will see that mould is still there in huge quantities.

    Dehenna Davison

    The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. If we can gather further examples of this, it will help us in the Department.

    Secondly, we have asked to see what concrete steps RBH is putting in place to immediately improve the living conditions of the tenants for whom they are still responsible. Thirdly, our ministerial team is planning to meet not only Awaab’s family but those who live on the Freehold estate to stress the fact that Government are in their corner. Fourthly, the Regulator of Social Housing is considering whether this landlord has systematically failed to meet the standards of service required to provide for its tenants. The hon. Member for Rochdale asked whether this would constitute an inquiry. I would not want to commit another Minister, given that this would fall within their brief, but I will take this away and raise it with them urgently, and I am happy to engage with the hon. Member further on that point.

    While our focus is absolutely on delivering justice for Awaab, all of us recognise that this is not an isolated incident; the problem is much bigger than one flat in Rochdale. As we gather here today, thousands of people across the country are stuck in homes that are not fit for human habitation. I believe the coroner spoke for everyone when she said that it was scarcely believable that a child could die from mould in 21st-century Britain. It was a damning statement that reinforced the urgent need for the kinds of reforms we have been working hard to get on to the statute book.

    The reforms we are bringing forward—measures designed to hold landlords to account and make sure their tenants are treated with fairness and dignity—can help us make Awaab’s death a watershed moment for housing in this country. And we are making progress. A fortnight ago, this House debated the Second Reading of the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill, which is designed to learn some of the incredibly painful but necessary lessons of the Grenfell Tower fire in 2017—a tragedy that shone a terrifying spotlight on the dreadful experiences of tenants in that tower block ahead of the fire.

    Grenfell tenants had spent years lobbying for basic changes to their building to make their homes liveable and safe. Their voices, like those of Awaab’s family, were kept on mute before disaster struck, so we set about making sure that that never happens again, with a strengthened housing ombudsman service to empower tenants by making sure their voices are truly heard. As part of that, we changed the law so that residents can now complain directly to the ombudsman, instead of having to wait eight weeks while their case was handled by a local MP or another designated person.

    It is one of the main jobs of the housing ombudsman service to make sure that robust complaint processes are in place, so that problems can be resolved as soon as they are flagged. In cases where landlords have clearly mistreated their residents, it can order landlords to pay compensation. If necessary, it can refer cases to the Regulator of Social Housing. Through the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill, we are strengthening the powers of the regulator, so that where there is a serious risk to tenants and the landlord has failed to take necessary action, it can issue unlimited fines to rogue landlords, enter properties with only 48 hours’ notice and make emergency repairs, with landlords footing the bill. The hon. Member for Rochdale asked about resourcing for the regulator. In this financial year, we have put in an additional £4.6 million to ensure that the regulator can operate, with more funding to come as we go further in designing how it will operate. I hope that provides him with some reassurance.

    But all the reforms in the world will be worth nothing if people do not know that they have rights to begin with. Awaab’s case, which never went before the ombudsman, shows that we can and must do more as a Government to promote this service and make sure it reaches those who need it. The Government have already run a nationwide “Make Things Right” campaign to raise awareness and tell social housing tenants how they can go about making complaints, and that has now reached millions of social housing tenants. We are working up another targeted, multi-year campaign, so that everyone living in the social housing sector knows their rights and knows how to exercise them. Where some providers have performed poorly in the past, they have been given plenty of opportunities to change their ways and start treating residents with the respect they deserve. I think that we are all in agreement that the time for empty promises has to be brought to an end.

    The Department will help to do that by naming and shaming those who have been found by the regulator to have breached consumer standards or who have been found by the ombudsman to have committed severe maladministration. I am sure that many hon. Members will have seen that that work is already well under way, with the Secretary of State writing to all local authorities over the weekend to set out the expectation that they will act quickly to resolve poor housing conditions in their area. He also separately wrote to all providers of social housing and made it abundantly clear that our expectation is that they will take all complaints about damp and mould seriously, act swiftly to rectify them, and be prepared to respond to a request from the Regulator of Social Housing on the extent of damp and mould issues.

    Finally, I will touch on standards. Although the pictures of damp and mould in social housing across the country leave us in no doubt that many properties fall well below the standards that we expect social landlords to meet, Awaab’s death has made it painfully clear why we must do more to better protect tenants. Our Social Housing (Regulation) Bill will bring in a rigorous new regime that holds such landlords to account for the decency of their homes.

    In the months ahead, we all have a chance to upend the appalling status quo and deliver a new deal for social housing tenants in the UK. I want to be clear that this is not about bashing all landlords and tarnishing them with the same brush—we have many fantastic landlords and housing associations in this country that treat tenants with the kindness and respect they deserve. It is about raising standards across the board and ensuring that every tenant has the chance to live in dignity.

    I echo the praise of the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan) for the incredible work of the Manchester Evening News in raising awareness. As the hon. Member for Rochdale said at the end of his speech, we have to do everything we can to ensure that nothing like this ever happens again.

  • Tony Lloyd – 2022 Speech on the Death of Awaab Ishak and Rochdale Boroughwide Housing

    Tony Lloyd – 2022 Speech on the Death of Awaab Ishak and Rochdale Boroughwide Housing

    The speech made by Tony Lloyd, the Labour MP for Rochdale, in the House of Commons on 24 November 2022.

    I rise to speak in what is probably one of the saddest debates that I have had to take part in. It concerns the death of Awaab Ishak, a young boy whose tragic death was made more tragic by the fact that it should never have happened.

    In a way, it is easy on these occasions to look round for where for where responsibility lies, and I will do that in a few minutes, but I want first to record the dignity of Awaab’s family, who have made it very clear that all they seek is to ensure that this can never happen to another family or another child. I pay enormous respect to the family for precisely that level of dignity, and I stand with them even now, two years on from the death of their child, because of course a child is irreplaceable.

    We now need to ask what went wrong. On many occasions I have risen from these Benches and criticised the Government for funding lapses, but this case is simply not about funding. It is about a housing association that did not do its job. We know that some of the factors that led to the death were things that simply should never have happened.

    Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)

    I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate and for his tireless efforts. Awaab’s death was an avoidable tragedy, and I am sure that Members from across the House have casework where tenants in both the social and private rental sectors are too often left in terrible conditions similar to those that caused this incident. Will he join me, in thanking the Manchester Evening News for its important campaign with Shelter to bring back regulation on consumer standards for social housing? Does he also agree that we must strengthen the rights of all tenants, regardless of whether they are living in the social or private sector? Finally, does he agree—

    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)

    Order. I cannot hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying because he is facing away from the Chair. If he spoke to the Chair, we could all hear him.

    Afzal Khan

    I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. Finally, does my hon. Friend agree that, in view of this systemic failure, the whole board is in an untenable position and must go?

    Tony Lloyd

    I will deal with my hon. Friend’s initial points a little later, but on the question of the board, I do think that we now have to question the way it has operated. To allow the chief executive to cling on to his job until public pressure made that impossible is an indictment of those who sought to give him that cover.

    Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Lab)

    Does my hon. Friend agree that, while it is welcome that Rochdale Boroughwide Housing has apologised, that is not good enough in these circumstances? It has admitted to making assumptions about lifestyles and therefore not dealing with the issue, which has cost such a young life and shows an inherent lack of leadership. The law has to be changed to make sure that landlords, both social and private, cannot ignore the health risks of damp and mould.

    Tony Lloyd

    Again, I agree with my hon. Friend. The reality is that blaming lifestyles in a case like this is ridiculous; we know that the things that went wrong go way beyond individual decisions and lifestyles.

    As I was about to say before my hon. Friend intervened, it is ludicrous to say to people that painting over mould is the answer. In my dim and distant youth, I lived in accommodation with mould, and when you walk into a building like that, you can feel it on your lungs. We know that children have much more sensitive lungs, so that combination cannot be blamed on lifestyle. The ventilation in the flat in this case was inadequate, but things could and should have been done about that. We know that the response of the housing association, RBH, was slow—as the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson) knows, RBH’s responses are customarily slow.

    Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this very important debate, and I agree that it is probably one of the more distressing debates that any of us has had to participate in. He has made an extremely important point: tenants repeatedly have to report issues to RBH, and sometimes those issues simply are not logged. In fact, I have an example from just today. Yesterday, I asked two members of my team to visit people who had made complaints about RBH. We wrote to RBH about those specific complaints, and today it acknowledged the complaints—which had been lodged four times by the tenant—and said that it had now opened a case. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is absolutely ludicrous that tenants are not being listened to by their housing association, and have to come to their Member of Parliament to get basic, decent housing standards?

    Tony Lloyd

    The hon. Member is absolutely right. Sadly, that kind of response—among other things—is what led to the death of Awaab; that failure to do the basics right is at the heart of what went wrong. I also had a response from RBH this week regarding a constituent, telling me that it had dealt with the mould problem in her property. One would think that at the moment, mould would be so high on Rochdale Boroughwide Housing’s agenda that it would be its No. 1 priority, yet the tenant has come back saying that far from the work having been done, the mould is still there. She has sent photographs to confirm that point.

    When the Ishak family went to a solicitor because they could not get justice directly through the housing association, RBH used a legal block, which automatically put a block on repairs. Most of us would regard a policy like that as ludicrous, but in this case it was more than ludicrous: it was dangerous. We know that many, many things went wrong, but the thing that probably got me most was that a letter from a health visitor was lost through bad IT. The health visitor recommended that the family be rehoused, yet that recommendation was never acted on. That is—well, people can choose their own words as to what it is, but it is pretty devastating.

    We know that many things have gone wrong. I say to the Minister that there needs to be an inquiry into RBH, even though we are two years on, because both the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton and I are of the view that RBH is simply not up to the job that we expect of it. That is not a criticism of many of the staff there: it is a criticism of the most senior managers, and indeed of the board. We need an investigation; even in recent days, whistleblowers—former employees—have talked about a culture of cost cutting at every turn, of bullying, and of failure to prioritise repairs. There is also the question of whether racism was involved, either institutional or more deliberate. Things like that have to be investigated.

    This is not just a local issue. Mould does not exist just in homes and houses in the Rochdale borough; it is a nationwide problem, and we need nationwide solutions. The Secretary of State told us the other day that he believes that

    “there are at least 2.3 million homes that fail the decent homes standard”—[Official Report, 16 November 2022; Vol. 722, c. 714.]

    We have to do something about that. There are 800,000 homes with damp, of which 400,000 are in the social rented sector and 400,000 are in the private rented sector. It is a problem with social landlords and private landlords, and we have to deal with them both.

    As my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan) says, we need to look at having an Awaab’s law to say that certain things must be done, including automatically treating mould as a potential health hazard. When mould or damp is reported, that should lead to an immediate response from the landlord. Anything else would be ridiculous. When the duty to repair comes in, there has to be a recognisable timescale. It is basic good housekeeping and we should put it on the statute book, because we know it is not happening. I can tell the House that it will be very popular, because 120,000 people have signed the petition that the Manchester Evening News has launched. I applaud those people and the MEN for taking up the case, and I applaud the fact that now the case has been raised, we are beginning to address the issues that the family want addressed.

    We also need to look beyond the immediate legal framework for housing associations. We have to ensure that if they fail to do the job we ask of them, other mechanisms will come in. Public health authorities, the local authority, the Regulator of Social Housing and other agencies all need to be involved. We have to ensure —this is a matter for the Minister and the Government—that they are properly resourced to do the job of controlling that we ask of them. We must not give them a legal duty and legal capacity unless we also give them the resource to undertake their role.

    One thing is bizarre. Supposedly, the Regulator of Social Housing is there to protect our interests by ensuring not only that housing associations are run with financial prudence, but that they conform to the standards that we expect. However, six months after Awaab died, the regulator did an in-depth assessment of Rochdale Boroughwide Housing. It gave RBH’s governance a G1—the best grade it can give, which is a little surprising —and said:

    “Based on the evidence gained from the IDA, the regulator has assurance that RBH’s governance arrangements enable it to adequately control the organisation and to continue meeting its objectives.”

    My goodness—I am glad that it is not in control of anything that affects me directly this very day.

    The regulator needs to up its own game. I say again to the Minister that we must give regulatory authorities the powers and the duties of the role that we need them to perform if housing associations and private landlords fail, but let us make sure that we give them the capacity as well. That means money, by the way, because without money we cannot employ qualified, competent staff.

    I turn to the role of the Secretary of State, who is in Rochdale today. It will be nice for him to hear this from someone on the Opposition Benches: I applaud the fact that he has been proactive in the days since the coronial inquest report. He has done a number of things that we all agree to be progress in the right direction, but I am a little uncomfortable about one thing, if I may say so.

    When the Secretary of State and I had an exchange in Parliament earlier this week, he spoke about the possibility of fines when housing associations go wrong. He was reported today as saying that he intends to take £1 million off RBH, from the affordable homes programme. It turns out that that may have been misreported, so perhaps it is important to set the record straight. I understand that what he proposes is simply that the money will be there for Rochdale but not for RBH; if so, I would be grateful if the Minister clarified that. Fining housing associations never seems to me to be the brightest way forward, because it penalises tenants. For residents in my constituency, it means repairs are not done and the homes they need are not available.

    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mike Wood.)

    Tony Lloyd

    It is rather nice to hear the chime of the Whips twice.

    The important point I was making is that fines do not do the trick, so I hope the Secretary of State and the Minister will think again, because there are other ways around this. For example, it is right and proper that we look at the role of the controlling mind—the senior officers. Clearly, we can have different responses.

    It is reasonable for the regulator, if properly structured, to be able to bring in disciplinary charges against senior managers. That is probably right because, as we know, the salary of the former chief executive went up to £170,000 a year at a time when the repair budget went down. It might have been sensible to consider cutting the salaries of senior officers on such occasions. When public money is involved, that is not an unreasonable proposition.

    In the end, it may well be that in the most egregious cases the criminal law should be involved, but not for the charge of corporate manslaughter, which is directed only at the organisation, so not properly at the controlling mind. I have always thought that was a weakness in such a proposition, because we need those who are in control and make decisions to concentrate on what needs to be done. Certainly, the investigation into RBH needs to take place. We then need to think about right and proper controls on the controlling mind. In the end, the structure of RBH is simply not up to it. It cannot be in anybody’s interests to have a faceless executive board that has no reference to the wider public.

    Let me share something with this packed Chamber. When I was about to complete my term as Mayor and police and crime commissioner of Greater Manchester, the chief executive of RBH approached me to see if I would think about taking on the role of chair of the board. Contemplate that: the chief executive instigating the appointment of the chair, who is responsible for discipline, pay and, ultimately, the hiring and firing of the chief executive. It is a very circular and dangerous little route, and I think we have to look at that structure, which is simply not fit and proper for the tenants we represent—the people of Rochdale. We must do better.

    There is a good case now for saying that the executive board has had its time and ought to go. Those on the board did not do the job that we expected of them. They did not scrutinise, and after Awaab’s death they did not insist on the kind of change that I would have expected. I have asked them for a timeline and have seen what they did, and frankly, it does not give them any cause for credit. In that context, we need to look at the temporary way in which that important housing association, which serves our community, is structured. In the longer run, the local authority has offered to take back control. That is supported not just by Rochdale Council’s controlling Labour group, but by the Conservative opposition group, and it certainly has to be looked at. In the end, the advantage of a council is that it has elected people, not faceless bureaucrats, and we can challenge and get rid of elected people.

    There has to be something about the tenants’ voice. There has to be something that allows tenants to have a voice that is amplified and heard, so that when things are going wrong, they can be dealt with and taken up.

    Those are a few semi-lengthy remarks. I could go on at greater length, but I will not. I will finish on this point: in the end, a little boy died. That is a little boy who should have been out playing in the streets, the parks or wherever in Rochdale, or wherever the family next move to live. That little boy should never have died. That little boy died because of an inadequate care of detail, and detail in this case really did matter. We must make sure it never happens again. Whether we call the legislation Awaab’s law or not—I hope we might think about doing that—is an open question. What I do know is that the only way we can say to the family that we have really learned the lessons, and not just as the formulaic words “We have learned the lessons”, is to show that we intend to take the actions that will make a permanent change so that this can never happen again.

  • Alan Brown – 2022 Speech on Government PPE Contracts, Michelle Mone and PPE Medpro

    Alan Brown – 2022 Speech on Government PPE Contracts, Michelle Mone and PPE Medpro

    The speech made by Alan Brown, the SNP MP for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, in the House of Commons on 29 November 2022.

    Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)

    I am sure that many MPs on this side of the House had no idea that a VIP lane existed for PPE contracts, but even if I did know about a VIP lane for referring contracts, if a constituent came to me and said, “Alan, I have never worked in a PPE environment. I’ve never ordered it before, but I’ve got a great plan. I can order it from China. Just refer me to a Minister”, I would not have done that because it would be impossible to do proper due diligence. So it beggars belief that this Government accepted recommendations from companies with no involvement and no expertise in PPE contracts, and still awarded these billions of pounds of contracts. Instead of mediation with PPE Medpro, is it not the case that a full investigation is needed and, if the Government are not going to do it, surely we need a public inquiry into PPE procurement.

    Neil O’Brien

    We are prepared to litigate whenever a company did not provide. There is a process, which I set out earlier. In many cases, there were people who did have important contacts in China and in other countries where PPE was being produced, and it was important to pursue all those leads because we needed to have that. But, to the hon. Gentleman’s point, due diligence had to be done and was done on all those cases in the same way. I have talked about the scale of the challenge and the 19,000 companies on which due diligence was initially done, and the huge drop-off between that number and the 2,648 companies that actually made it through that filter. So we can see in the difference between 19,000 and 2,648 that there was a huge amount of filtering done by the team of 400 people who were working so hard to try to get the PPE that we needed to the nurses and doctors in our NHS.

  • Peter Grant – 2022 Speech on Government PPE Contracts, Michelle Mone and PPE Medpro

    Peter Grant – 2022 Speech on Government PPE Contracts, Michelle Mone and PPE Medpro

    The speech made by Peter Grant, the SNP MP for Glenrothes, in the House of Commons on 24 November 2022.

    Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)

    My colleagues on the Public Accounts Committee are at an important evidence session this morning, otherwise I have no doubt that many more of them would be here. The report on PPE contracts, which was unanimously agreed by the Committee earlier this year, stated:

    “At no point was consideration given to the extent of the profit margin that potential suppliers would be taking on payments for PPE. Neither was consideration of any potential conflicts between individuals making referrals through the VIP lane and the companies they were referring. We”—

    the Public Accounts Committee, unanimously—

    “are therefore unsurprised to see the reports of excessive profits and conflicts of interest on PPE contracts.”

    Yet if today’s Guardian reports are correct, the extent of lobbying of Cabinet Ministers, one of whom is back in the Cabinet, by a senior Conservative politician went significantly further than the Public Accounts Committee was aware of at the time. Can the Minister confirm that the reports of additional lobbying in today’s Guardian are accurate and, if they are not accurate, can he come back with a statement to confirm that?

    Neil O’Brien

    I read the same article as the hon. Gentleman. I notice that it did not lead to a contract—the case that was mentioned in The Guardian—but more generally, absolutely, there are many lessons to learn about this process. However, we were having to pay, in some cases upfront, for PPE because, as part of the global scramble for PPE that I have described, if we were not prepared to go that extra mile, we would simply not have had the PPE and we would have had more nurses without the vital protective equipment that we all needed.

  • Geraint Davies – 2022 Speech on Government PPE Contracts, Michelle Mone and PPE Medpro

    Geraint Davies – 2022 Speech on Government PPE Contracts, Michelle Mone and PPE Medpro

    The speech made by Geraint Davies, the Labour MP for Swansea West, in the House of Commons on 24 November 2022.

    Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)

    The Welsh Labour Government received £874 million for PPE as its population-proportionate share, but spent only £300 million—about a third of the money given. That suggests, says Cardiff University, that the UK Government could have saved £8 billion, or £300 a household across the UK, had they used public authorities, health authorities and councils instead of private profiteering contractors known to Ministers. Will the Minister look carefully at the Welsh model and, in future, use the public sector rather than private sector cronies known to Ministers such as the former Health and Social Care Secretary, the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), who is out in the jungle making more money for himself?

    Neil O’Brien

    Inevitably, a huge amount of the PPE that is produced in the world is produced by private companies. There is no world in which we could avoid the use of private companies to supply PPE.

  • Mark Harper – 2022 Letter to the RMT Union and Mick Lynch

    Mark Harper – 2022 Letter to the RMT Union and Mick Lynch

    The letter sent by Mark Harper, the Secretary of State for Transport, to Mick Lynch, the General Secretary of the RMT, on 28 November 2022.

    Letter (in .pdf format)

  • Rishi Sunak – 2022 Speech on Foreign Policy to the Lord Mayor’s Banquet

    Rishi Sunak – 2022 Speech on Foreign Policy to the Lord Mayor’s Banquet

    The speech made by Rishi Sunak, the Prime Minister, at the Guildhall in London on 28 November 2022.

    My Lord Mayor, Ladies and Gentlemen,

    Whether by virtue of history or accident of geography, our country has always looked out to the world.

    I was born in Southampton…

    … a port city the Victorians called the gateway to the world…

    … where the Mayflower set sail…

    … where Spitfires were built and allied troops embarked on D-Day.

    And just as we look out to the world, so the world often looks to Britain.

    Like many others, my grandparents came to the UK, via East Africa and the Indian subcontinent… and made their lives here.

    In recent years, we’ve welcomed thousands of people…

    …from Hong Kong, Afghanistan, and Ukraine.

    We’re a country that stands up for our values…

    … that defends democracy by actions not just words…

    A country that commits not just our resources but our ingenuity to better the lives of others, and ourselves.

    Ukrainian flags have flown over almost every town and city on these islands for the past nine months.

    No one told people to put them there.

    They felt moved to show solidarity with people they’ve never met, in a country most have never even visited…

    …to show their faith in fairness, freedom and the rule of law.

    These values are constant.

    They are set in stone.

    But as the world evolves, so does our application of those values.

    As Edmund Burke argued, circumstances and context are everything.

    And today the pace of geopolitical change is intensifying.

    Our adversaries and competitors plan for the long term.

    After years of pushing at the boundaries, Russia is challenging the fundamental principles of the UN Charter.

    China is conspicuously competing for global influence using all the levers of state power.

    In the face of these challenges, short-termism or wishful thinking will not suffice.

    We can’t depend on Cold War arguments or approaches, or mere sentimentality about our past.

    So we will make an evolutionary leap in our approach.

    This means being stronger in defending our values and the openness on which our prosperity depends.

    It means delivering a stronger economy at home, as the foundation of our strength abroad.

    And it means standing up to our competitors, not with grand rhetoric but with robust pragmatism.

    We will do all this…

    …not only through our diplomatic expertise, science and tech leadership, and investment in defence and security…

    …but by dramatically increasing the quality and depth of our partnerships with like-minded allies around the world.

    We will set out more detail in the updated Integrated Review in the new year…

    …including how we’ll work with friends in the Commonwealth, the US, the Gulf states, Israel and others.

    But tonight I’d like to describe how we’re already making this evolutionary leap in three other places.

    First, as we stand by Ukraine, we’re also reinvigorating our European relationships to tackle challenges like security and illegal migration.

    Second, we’re taking a longer-term view on China, strengthening our resilience and protecting our economic security.

    And third, we’re seizing the huge opportunities on offer in the Indo-Pacific by building deep and long-lasting partnerships.

    First, Ukraine.

    In Kyiv, I just saw how Russia’s focus is shifting from bruising encounters on the battlefield to brutalising the civilian population.

    It was written in the scarred buildings and the piles of rubble lining the streets…

    …in the stories of the first responders I met from liberated Kherson…

    …from the torture chambers to the booby traps left in children’s toys.

    As the world comes together to watch the World Cup…

    …I saw how an explosive device had been hidden inside a child’s football – seeking to make it a weapon of war.

    It defies belief.

    So be in no doubt, we will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes.

    Next year we will maintain or even  increase our military aid.

    And we will provide new support for air defence, to protect the Ukrainian people and the critical infrastructure they rely on.

    By protecting Ukraine, we protect ourselves.

    With the fall of Kabul, the pandemic, the economic strife, some said the West was weak.

    In fact, our response in Ukraine has shown the depth of our collective resolve.

    Sweden and Finland are joining NATO.

    Germany is increasing its defence spending.

    Partners as far afield as Australia, Japan and South Korea are standing with us.

    We’ve developed an entirely new sanctions model.

    And through NATO and the Joint Expeditionary Force we’re guarding against further Russian aggression…

    …whether in the east or the High North.

    We’re also evolving our wider post-Brexit relations with Europe…

    …including bilaterally and engaging with the new European Political Community.

    But this is not about greater alignment.

    Under my leadership we’ll never align with EU law.

    Instead, we’ll foster respectful, mature relationships with our European neighbours on shared issues like energy and illegal migration…

    …to strengthen our collective resilience against strategic vulnerabilities.

    And that brings me to my second point.

    We also need to evolve our approach to China.

    Let’s be clear, the so-called “golden era” is over…

    …along with the naïve idea that trade would automatically lead to social and political reform.

    But nor should we rely on simplistic Cold War rhetoric.

    We recognise China poses a systemic challenge to our values and interests…

    …a challenge that grows more acute as it moves towards even greater authoritarianism.

    Instead of listening to their people’s protests, the Chinese Government has chosen to crack down further…

    …including by assaulting a BBC journalist.

    The media – and our parliamentarians – must be able to highlight these issues without sanction…

    …including calling out abuses in Xinjiang – and the curtailment of freedom in Hong Kong.

    Of course, we cannot simply ignore China’s significance in world affairs…

    …to global economic stability or issues like climate change.

    The US, Canada, Australia, Japan and many others understand this too.

    So together we’ll manage this sharpening competition, including with diplomacy and engagement.

    Much of this is about dramatically improving our resilience, particularly our economic security.

    That’s why we created new powers under the National Security and Investment Act…

    …it’s why we used them this month to block the sale of Newport Wafer Fab.

    It’s why we took action on 5G.

    And it’s why we’re ending global dependence on authoritarian regimes – starting with Russian gas.

    Now we’re also acting to deepen our ties in the Indo-Pacific – the third example of where we’re evolving our approach.

    Before I came into politics, like many of you, I invested in businesses around the world… and the opportunity in the Indo-Pacific is compelling.

    Take Indonesia, which I visited just this month.

    It’s a young, vibrant country…

    …the world’s third largest democracy…

    …poised to become a top 5 global economy.

    By 2050, the Indo-Pacific will deliver over half of global growth …

    …compared with just a quarter from Europe and North America combined.

    That’s why we’re joining the Trans-Pacific trade deal, the CPTPP…

    …delivering a new FTA with India…

    …and pursuing one with Indonesia.

    But in the Indo-Pacific economics and security are indivisible.

    60% of global trade passes through regional shipping routes…

    …including choke points like the straits of Malacca.

    It’s in our interests to keep these trade lines open.

    That’s why we joined the Five Power Defence Arrangements with Australia, Malaysia, New Zealand and Singapore half a century ago.

    And it’s why we’re evolving new long-term defence, industrial and technological partnerships…

    …like AUKUS with Australia and the US…

    …and the Future Combat Air System with Italy and Japan.

    By deepening these ties we’ll help protect the arteries and ventricles of the global economy…

    …supporting security and prosperity – both at home in our European neighbourhood and in the Indo-Pacific.

    My Lord Mayor,

    As we meet here tonight, the people of Ukraine are hunkered down in freezing temperatures, on the front line of the fight for freedom.

    In Iran, women are displaying the most humbling and breath-taking courage…

    …refusing to bow to thuggish, theocratic control.

    And tomorrow Iran’s football team will again stand with them in solidarity – facing unknown consequences as a result.

    Freedom and openness have always been the most powerful forces for progress.

    But they have never been achieved by standing still.

    As Henry Kissinger wrote:

    …during periods of crisis… whether war, technological change or economic dislocation… management of the status quo may be the riskiest choice of all.

    Under my leadership we won’t choose the status quo.

    We will do things differently.

    We will evolve…

    … anchored always by our enduring belief in freedom, openness and the rule of law…

    … and confident that in this moment of challenge and competition…

    … our interests will be protected… and our values will prevail.

    Thank you.

  • Steve Barclay – 2022 Speech at the Spectator Health Summit

    Steve Barclay – 2022 Speech at the Spectator Health Summit

    The speech made by Steve Barclay, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, in London on 28 November 2022.

    In the Autumn statement – alongside difficult decisions designed to tackle inflation and keep mortgage rises down – the Prime Minister and the Chancellor made a clear commitment to public services, increasing the NHS budget by an extra £6.6 billion over the next two years and increasing funding for social care by £2.8 billion and £4.7 billion in each of the next two years. So, combined, £8 billion going into 2024.

    That recognises that what happens in our health and care system has a big impact on the wider economy.

    I’m pleased that investment and prioritisation was well-received within the NHS itself, with Amanda Pritchard, the NHS chief executive, welcoming our decision to prioritise health and the NHS Confederation calling it a “positive day for the NHS”.

    But with that financial package a key part now of my job is to make sure those funds are spent effectively.

    That means tackling the pandemic backlogs, operations, access to GPs, and urgent and emergency care. I’m sure this audience recognises that a big part of the challenge we face both with ambulance handovers and in A&E is shaped by what happens with delayed discharge – those patients who are fit to leave hospital but are often still in hospital for many days further.

    Now, efficiency within the NHS is often seen through the lens of finance.

    So, the case I want to make today is that efficiency is not just a finance priority – it’s a patient priority too.

    Because efficiency is an indicator of wider system health.

    An efficient system addresses bottlenecks that delay patient care by designing new journeys for patients that avoid those delays.

    Because quicker – and therefore earlier treatment – will lead to better patient outcomes whether that is from earlier cancer diagnoses, with the announcement a couple of weeks ago on direct access for GPs, or on antibiotics – getting the right antibiotic first time, rather than the third or fourth time. Obviously bringing significant patient benefits, but it is also efficient in terms of cost.

    So an efficient system will get better treatment to the patient and improvement patient outcomes, but in doing so, it will also unlock value for money.

    And for this to happen, we need to move to more personalised care – we can already see examples of this taking shape.

    During the pandemic, people got used to the idea of a Covid test being sent to them at home. Home testing offers the opportunity for patients to be tested for specific things, even before they realise they have the symptoms, enabling them to get care at a much earlier stage than what would have traditionally been the case.

    That kind of fast-tracking is not only potentially life-saving but it also will mean that the NHS over time will pay less for that care.

    Another example is what we set out in the Women’s Health Strategy around one stop shops, enabling women to access a range of services on a single visit. Not only do you improve the speed of care, but we also improve its effectiveness whilst delivering that at a lower cost.

    So we know whether through the Women’s Health Strategy, through Community Diagnostics Centres, through surgical hubs, we can deliver care in different ways – where the treatment is delivered to the patient at an earlier point than is currently the case, but in turn will unlock better value for money.

    And that requires us to think differently about the mix of services. Let me give you an example in terms of Pharmacy First. Pharmacist First you would have thought, in the name, would involve the pharmacy being indeed first, and yet, quite often, the patient goes to the pharmacy before the GP programme referral, suggesting the scope to further streamline the process.

    So, in short, quicker access to treatment means addressing bottlenecks, delivering new pathways, and in doing so, unlocking better outcomes for patients.

    But for this to really take root, we need to be open about our attitude to risk and our risk appetite.

    Currently, I believe the NHS scores the risk of innovation too highly when compared to the risks of the status quo and I think that needs to be recalibrated.

    This is because innovation tends to be judged, in isolation, in a silo.

    Take for example the risks around the introducing machine learning.

    On its own, it may carry some risk. But that risk should be judged against the risk of the status quo, where there may be long delays due to staff shortages, and so the speed of treatment and the ability to better target valuable resource needs to be weighed as part of the risk assessment of that innovation.

    So, we need to be scoring innovation risk within a much wider context than simply looking at it in a silo.

    And as we change our risk appetite for innovation, we also need to change our risk appetite for transparency.

    Because only when we’re transparent about the challenges we face will we empower greater patient choice, particularly in the context of vested interests which are inevitable in a budget of £182 billion.

    It’s also why we need senior clinicians to lead that change too.

    And why I’m so pleased that Professor Sir Tim Briggs – one of the country’s most highly regarded orthopaedic surgeons is taking up his new leadership role as Clinical Lead for the Elective Recovery Programme working closely with Sir Jim Mackey, one of the country’s most respected hospital CEOs.

    Now, one shared point of understanding must be the scale of the Covid backlog, with around now 7.1 million patients.

    We must also be transparent coming out of Covid around excess deaths.

    For example, we know from the data that there are more 50 to 64-year-olds with cardiovascular issues.

    It’s the result of delays in that age group seeing a GP because of the pandemic and in some cases, not getting statins for hypertension in time.

    When coupled with delays to ambulance times we see this reflected in the excess death numbers.

    In time, we may well see a similar challenge in cancer data.

    I want us to innovate around challenges like this.

    We already know that GPs are under pressure. So what else can we do by way of innovation?

    Well, let me give you just one example – we could think about how employers can help us better reach those who might otherwise not come forward?

    So, by being more transparent around who to prioritise on excess deaths, I believe we can engage employers and different ways of reaching key groups.

    When we are collectively understanding the challenges, it becomes easier to find the solutions.

    We also need to be clear about some of the demographic headwinds we face too.

    We have an ageing population.

    By the end of this decade, there are projected to be over four times as many people aged over 80, as a proportion of the population, that there were around the time the NHS was set up.

    On average, treating an 80-year-old is four times more expensive that treating a 50-year-old.

    And as proportion of the population, we have fewer working people to pay for healthcare.

    Around the time the old age pension came in over a century ago in England and Wales, we had 19 people aged 20 to 69, for every person over 70.

    Today that figure is down closer to 5 to 1.

    At the same time, healthcare continues to become more expensive.

    But in the face of such headwinds – from an ageing population or on the legacy of the Covid backlogs – it’s important we also focus on where we have the ability to turn the tide.

    Today I want to pick out on just two of those:

    The expansion of life sciences – and the promise of new treatments and the embrace of technology and the better use of data.

    As today is Life Sciences Day, that’s where I’ll start.

    When we published our Life Sciences Vision last year we also launched ambitious missions, from dementia to vaccine discovery.

    And I’m pleased that we’re seeing four more missions on cancer, obesity, mental health and addiction – and we’re backing those with £113 million of new funds.

    It’s an example of how we’re turning our country’s cutting-edge research capabilities onto the biggest healthcare challenges that we face and doing so in a way where the British people can really experience the benefits.

    And these missions will continue to benefit from the incredible life sciences ecosystem we have built here in the UK, from the MHRA, to NICE, to the NHS.

    And just this morning, that powerful collaboration has seen us give the go ahead to a new life-extending treatment on the NHS for patients with advanced stage prostate cancer. It’s another example of how that ecosystem is working for the benefits of patients.

    Another increasingly important part of that ecosystem is Genomics.

    Whilst Genomics England has been in place since 2014, there is scope to bring forward and apply their science more directly to the immediate challenges the NHS faces, rather than Life Sciences being seen as uneventful research that will emerge in a number of years’ time.

    Genomics in particular offers significant hope to rare diseases, often the diseases that receive less treatment.

    Life sciences offers scope to get the medicines, the right drugs, first time.

    By using genetic insights, we can discover the unique “signature” of a cancer tumour and make sure each patient gets the best course of treatment for them.

    The second area that I wanted to bring up this morning in terms of meeting those headwinds is around tech and big data.

    We are at a historical moment where we have the ability where patients consent to generate big data through the internet of things through new MedTech and wearables.

    We can achieve it because, over the last decade, the cost of computer chips has come down exponentially helping us generate more valuable data, with the ability to store it safely, cheaply and securely in the cloud – which has also increased significantly.

    That in turn combines with machine learning, where we have a new capability to analyse it.

    Generate. Store. Analyse. All of which have been transformed in recent years.

    This is a virtuous triangle that unlocks our ability to move to a more personalised form of care.

    It’s also yet another area where efficiency will actually equate to better patient outcomes, enabling funding to go further.

    Just as genomics can help create more bespoke treatment – like those examples I gave on drug resistance and cancer, so can data.

    And I will encourage the safe and secure sharing of data through the NHS for those patients who consent so that patients can play their part in life-changing medical breakthroughs and become the beneficiaries too.

    Now, we can see this spirit in action with the new Our Future Health research programme, which was launched last month.

    It aims to find new ways to prevent, detect and treat disease.

    Three million people have been invited to join the programme, which will eventually recruit five million or more people from all walks of life.

    Now, throughout the pandemic, the British public showed their willingness to play their part and be part of the solution.

    And it’s great to see them doing so again in our fight against diseases like diabetes, Alzheimer’s and many more.

    Anyone can sign up – so, and I use this as an opportunity for a plug, just go and Google Our Future Health and register online.

    The programme also reflects an innovative new model of funding.

    While about £80 million of the programmes’ funding comes from the UK government another £160 million comes from life sciences companies.

    So, it’s a great example of public and private coming together to strengthen the NHS and help lift some of the burdens of late-stage disease.

    The final thing I want to reflect on this morning is what this embrace of technology and data can achieve for our mental health.

    The pandemic saw us move online like never before – and mental health provision was no exception.

    Our services rapidly adapted to provide patients with support through video consultations, digital models of therapy and self-management apps.

    I know that for patients, it presents a number of advantages, with greater flexibility to use resources at evenings and weekends and greater anonymity too.

    So it’s exciting to explore the future possibilities of technology in the treatment and support of metal heath conditions – from common conditions like depression and anxiety to more complex conditions like eating disorders ad bipolar disorder.

    I recognise that much of the demand for mental health provision comes from children and young people.

    We know that 50 per cent of mental health problems are established by the age of 14, and 75 per cent by the age of 24.

    That’s why mental health provision for children and young people is such a priority for my department.

    And when it comes to our adult population I’m a strong supporter also of social prescribing and the wellbeing agenda.

    Indeed, when I was Chief Secretary, to the slight surprise I think of the Department of Health and Social Care and DEFRA, I chaired a committee trying to get the Treasury to push those departments to go further on social prescribing.

    I think it’s exciting to see the scope that social prescribing offers through the ability of tech to better measure activity now and therefor make the wider economic case around what potential that it unlocks, and that in turn, I think, will help change the Treasury appetite for programmes which were given lower priority in the past.

    In Great Britain, the total cost to our economy of preventable or treatable ill health amongst the working age population is somewhere between £112-153 billion.

    To put that in a different context, it’s equivalent to up to 5-7% of GDP.

    So at a time when we have a shortage of workers, making strides on mental health makes sense on every level. For those more familiar with the Treasury, it is what one might call a double or triple word score – it benefits health, it benefits their agenda on levelling up, and it benefits the economy in terms of GDP.

    In closing, I want to be clear on the central themes through which we will approach the significant challenges the department faces.

    First, a focus on devolving decisions matched with better quality data and more of that data in real time, rather than through a rear-view mirror looking weeks, months – and sometimes even years behind.

    Second, a prioritisation of patient outcomes and empowering much greater patient choice.

    Indeed, when I was Minister for the Cabinet Office, with responsibility for science and technology, I discovered we had 50 different strategies within government for science and technology.

    So, I strongly favour a more agile approach of delivering the initial change and then building from there – rather than looking to what might be delivered in many years’ time, through a particular big change some years hence.

    Third, embracing transparency to help empower patients in supporting the case for change and in particular, for innovation – given that, when spending around £182 billion of public money there will always be defenders of the status quo. And indeed, some of those interests will often be more trusted than, dare I say it, politicians making the case for change.

    What brings those three principles together is the fact that – to meet the scale of the health challenges we face must ensure we don’t slip back into old habits.

    Covid is still with us. And so in particular are its consequences, in the form of pandemic backlogs.

    So we must continue to embrace the pace and risk appetite of the pandemic when it comes to innovating at pace and at scale, and better assessing how risk is scored when we do so.

    That is what I believe the British people rightly expect us to do, and if we are to confront the scale of challenges facing the NHS, that is what we need to do.

  • Tan Dhesi – 2022 Speech on Government PPE Contracts, Michelle Mone and PPE Medpro

    Tan Dhesi – 2022 Speech on Government PPE Contracts, Michelle Mone and PPE Medpro

    The speech made by Tam Dhesi, the Labour MP for Slough, in the House of Commons on 24 November 2022.

    For Tory peers and other chums of the Conservative party to have been profiteering at taxpayers’ expense from shoddy, unusable PPE, especially through the VIP procurement lane, at a time when people were locked down in their homes and tens of thousands of people, including my loved ones, were dying is absolutely sickening, shameful and unforgiveable. Given that The BMJ estimates that the Government have written off approximately £10 billion in unusable, undelivered or shoddy PPE, will the Minister take the opportunity to apologise to bereaved families for the amazing lack of integrity at the heart of the whole process?

    Neil O’Brien

    I set out earlier what the high priority route was and was not: it was absolutely not a guarantee of any kind of contract; it was a way of managing the huge numbers of contacts and offers for help that we were all receiving. It delivered something in the order of 5 billion items of PPE, all of which helped to save lives and protect workers in our NHS and social care settings. Of course, we had to take up those offers of help and respond to them when people wanted to help in the middle of a huge national and global crisis. We had to process those offers, but they were processed in exactly the same way as every other bid for a contract.