Chris Ward
MP for Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven · Labour · United Kingdom
“My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. She has raised it with me previously, and she is a fantastic champion for her constituents. As she knows, I am working with the National Shipbuilding Office to bring forward the new rules. Shipbuilding is one of the areas that we are prioritising.”
“A number of colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank), have raised this subject several times with me, and I am working with Department for Transport colleagues to see what more we can do to support British manufacturers, but we are already acting.”
“The hon. Member is absolutely right that we need to do more to support SMEs, and that we need to use our procurement budget to do that. I have announced some of the steps that we have already taken.”
“This Government are determined to ensure that public procurement backs small and medium-sized businesses. That is why we have strengthened late payment rules, have set ambitious targets for all Departments to spend more with small and medium-sized enterprises—totalling £7 billion by 2028—and are simplifying the entire system to ensure tha…”
“I absolutely do. We announced last week that we will bring all Government Property Agency, catering and security services back in-house, or at least that it is our intention to do that.”
“My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight small businesses like the one in her constituency. As I announced in March, small businesses will now receive just over £7 billion a year from government procurement, as a result of reforms that we have put in place. That will support the industrial strategy that she mentioned.”
The complete record
Every one of 352 lines we hold for Chris Ward, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 8.
“Alongside that, we are gaining access to India’s procurement portal, providing a line of sight for British businesses on a huge and growing market. Under the terms of the agreement, British businesses will have access to procurements above £478,000 for goods and services, and £5.3 million for construction services. We have also gained exclusive treatment for UK bidders to be treated as class 2 suppliers under the Make in India policy. This will apply if at least 20% of the product or service is from the UK or India. That will give British companies a significant competitive advantage, as it goes beyond anything negotiated by others.”
“Our trade with India is already worth £47 billion a year, up 15% year on year, and it is of course a market with huge and growing demand for imports, presenting major opportunities for British businesses and procurement. However, India’s markets are also behind some of the highest trade barriers in the world, locking out many British businesses. The deal we have secured knocks down many of those barriers and goes well beyond India’s agreements with other countries. Indeed, it opens the door for British businesses on an unprecedented basis, especially in respect of Government procurement. The procurement chapter will unlock around £38 billion a year of contracts in sectors such as advanced manufacturing, healthcare, construction, infrastructure and clean energy. For the first time, UK companies will be able to compete for those contracts.”
“I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Procurement Act 2023 (Specified International Agreements and Saving Provision) (Amendment) Regulations 2026. It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. The purpose of this statutory instrument is to implement the procurement chapter of the UK-India comprehensive economic and trade agreement via an amendment to the Procurement Act 2023. The UK-India CETA was signed on 24 July 2025. It is one of the most significant and ambitious bilateral trade agreements that the UK has concluded since leaving the EU. India is of course one of the economic heavyweights of the 21st century and is likely to become the third largest global economy by the end of this decade.”
“In conclusion, this agreement is a major milestone in our relationship with India, a vast and growing economy that we hope British businesses can contribute to as much as possible. Implementation of the procurement deal is a big step forward for us, and I hope colleagues will join me in approving the regulations. Question put and agreed to .”
“As I said, the EU has not gained the same arrangements around the Make in India policy and treatment of suppliers as class 2, and it has not gained access to the procurement portal in the same way that we have, so our deal is materially better. Secondly, I gently say that if the Liberal Democrats want to enter a new customs union, they should know that any free trade deal that we did on that basis would not be an independent free trade deal; it would be a trade deal agreed by the EU, and it would be on qualitatively inferior terms, because the EU has just negotiated its deal and ours is stronger. There is a consequence to the position that the Liberal Democrats take. I hope that helps; if there are points that I have missed, I will write with further detail.”
“As I said, our aim is for the agreement to come in as quickly as possible. On the point raised by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove about services and the ambitious nature of the deal, we estimate that the agreement is worth around £5 billion a year to the UK economy. For an individual trade deal, that is very significant; as I say, it is more ambitious than a lot of the deals that have already been completed, and it is the first type of deal like this that the Indian Government have agreed. While none of us is in the mood to relitigate Brexit, or talk through that too much, I will make two minor points. First, Britain has negotiated a stronger deal than the EU.”
“Until we gain access, as we have done, to the procurement portal and are established in the market, it is hard to know the exact material economic benefits, but obviously we hope that this will be a first step in that. As I say, it is a foot in the door that is greatly welcomed. I should point out that the Department for Business and Trade is working incredibly hard on business engagement in India. We have a team on the ground there to try to maximise this and capitalise on it as much as possible, and they are working really closely with British businesses to make sure that they can do that. In terms of application, the regulations come into force on 30 March. The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 process has been completed on the broader trade deal, so this will align with that.”
“I am grateful for the spirit in which the debate has been carried out. The hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire rightly mentioned that the regulations build on the Procurement Act passed under the last Government. That is a good thing, although we will set out plans shortly to improve it. He is quite right that nothing in the regulations affects the national security powers, and that the regulations tidy up contracts completed prior to the Procurement Act—that is why they are important. On business engagement and impact assessment, this is really about getting a foot in the door of the Indian market for UK businesses, and it is very hard to model the impact of that at this stage. It is a large and growing market, with huge demand for imports.”
“The Government strongly support inclusive PPE for all workers and welcome the new British Standards Institution standard. Central Government commercial teams have seen increased provision of inclusive PPE across major programmes and projects. I know how seriously my hon. Friend takes this issue; so do the Government, and I hope to meet with her soon to discuss it further.”
“My hon. Friend is absolutely right: fit-to-form PPE is vital to protect all workers, and I agree that there is an opportunity for Government to do more here. We welcome the new standard and think it will contribute to good practice, and we will monitor how that proceeds. I understand that the BSI will present on this to the construction sector soon. My hon. Friend and I are due to meet shortly, and I look forward to discussing how we can take this forward.”
“The Government are determined to ensure that our £400 billion-a-year procurement budget supports British businesses. The Cabinet Office has published the digital, data and technology playbook, which provides guidance on how to source and contract digital data and technology projects. It includes guidance for all Departments, including the Department of Health and Social Care.”
“My hon. Friend raises a serious point, which builds on the last question, which the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, who is also the Security Minister, answered, and the question about digital ID. If it is okay with my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) , I will write to her about the steps that the Department is taking and how we are working across Government on this important matter.”
“As part of our new partnership with the EU, we are currently negotiating an agreement to link emission trading schemes. This will lower costs for businesses and consumers, and, alongside the food and drink deal mentioned previously, add £9 billion a year to our economy. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office speaks regularly with Commissioner Šefčovič on this, and we will keep the House updated on progress.”
“Absolutely; I could not agree more. At the heart of the negotiation on which my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office is leading is how we reduce bills, ease the route to decarbonisation and reduce our reliance on volatile fossil fuel markets, which, as we have seen in the last week, is not just a national security issue but a cost of living issue. That is why we are working so hard on it, and why such work is broadly welcomed by so many businesses.”
“My hon. Friend refers to the A127, and I could mention that the A259 in sunny Brighton has the same hold-ups, but we will not dwell on that. He is right that we need to do more to support SME growth and productivity, and to free up opportunity across the country. We have recently changed procurement rules to make sure that more money—and more power as well—is kept in local communities. We will publish further plans soon. I hope that Transport Ministers have heard his point about a new link road.”
“Of course, the referendum result also defined the political choices of the last decade, leading not just to the rise and fall of many Prime Ministers but to gridlock in Parliament and, in my view, to an overlooked consequence: the big domestic reforms that the country was crying out for—on special educational needs and disabilities, social care, planning and tackling inequality—were ignored because Parliament and successive Governments proved themselves incapable of doing Brexit and, frankly, anything else. [ Interruption. ] That—”
“Whichever side we were on, the Brexit result was the most significant and defining political moment of a generation, not just in terms of our relationship with the EU but in reshaping our place in the world and challenging long-held assumptions about our economic and trading relationships, our security relationships and our diplomatic power and reach, as well as the very ties and bonds that hold together this great United Kingdom of ours—particularly in respect of Northern Ireland, where the referendum result has undoubtedly raised huge challenges, which were powerfully brought up earlier.”
“I thank the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) for securing the debate, and other Members for the many contributions today from all sides of the House and all parts of the UK—if not quite representing both sides of the debate in proportion to the referendum result. I want to cover some of the questions raised regarding the Government’s approach, and reflect on the importance of the vote 10 years on.”
“It meant being outside the EU, but being close to it. It meant leaving in an orderly way, while minimising the economic, cultural and diplomatic dislocation that we all knew would follow. It meant co operating where we can, protecting British businesses, supply chains and employment standards and, as he mentioned many times in the House during the subsequent debates, ensuring no hard border in Northern Ireland. Nearly a decade on, this Labour Government were elected with a mandate to do precisely that. Last year, the Prime Minister hosted the first UK EU summit, where we agreed the first stage: the common understanding and a new framework for UK EU relations.”
“I am afraid I will not give way. That is the silent tragedy of the Brexit decade. It is a mistake we will not repeat. I have a quick confession: at the time of the referendum I was a youngish political adviser to the relatively new Member of Parliament for Holborn and St Pancras. I remember sitting in his garden the day after the referendum, discussing what on earth we would do next. Suffice to say, he was not best pleased with the result, but he understood its significance and, as the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) referred to earlier, the importance of respecting that result and finding a way through. After a short period of introspection, the now Prime Minister sketched out a vision of what he thought Britain should do. In time, this became known as “making Brexit work”.”
“In line with our manifesto, that will be outside the single market and the customs union and without freedom of movement. We will not try to relitigate the referendum result, but we will repair the unnecessary national self harm of the deals negotiated in the last decade, and we will align with the single market where it is in our national interest and our sovereign right to do so. We will deliver a partnership with the EU, based on common economic and cultural interests and in the national interest, and turn the page on the last decade of failure.”
“I am also delighted that we have negotiated—quite quickly, I think—to rejoin the Erasmus+ scheme, which will benefit more than 100,000 young people. We will legislate for that shortly. We aim for the agreements to be in play by the first half of 2027. The progress we have made in the last 18 months is the basis of the closer relationship that the Prime Minister had in his mind’s eye when we discussed this back in his garden some 10 years ago. To be clear—I say this proudly and confidently—this is just the start of a new relationship with the EU under this Government. We are no longer, as the Prime Minister said in Munich, the Britain of the Brexit years. We want a closer relationship with the EU and we want deeper integration. We were elected with a mandate to do precisely that and we will deliver it.”
“I am afraid I will not; I am so sorry. That first stage includes a new security and defence partnership because, as the Prime Minister said in Munich, there is no British security without Europe and no European security without Britain. As mentioned, it also includes an SPS agreement which will—my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) made this point powerfully—make a huge difference to farmers and food producers. We are also in the process of negotiating access to the EU’s internal electricity market, which will cut bills for businesses and consumers. We are negotiating the youth experience scheme, which a number of Members mentioned and which I strongly support and called for.”
“In conclusion, the Government continue to take this matter incredibly seriously, and given the nature of the issues at stake and the scope of material in play, we will comply fully and deliver this material as quickly and transparently as possible. The Government will keep the House updated as they do so, and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister will publish a written ministerial statement later today.”
“The House will also be aware of the statement from the Metropolitan police regarding the ongoing police investigation. That statement made clear that the “process to decide which documents should ultimately be published remains a matter for…parliament.” That is absolutely right, and we agree, but as the House would expect, the Government rightly do not wish to release anything that may undermine an ongoing police investigation. As such, we are working with the police as they conduct their inquiries to manage this process. I think that is the right way forward, Mr Speaker, and I hope you and the House agree.”
“In line with the motion passed by this House, where the Government consider that documents may be prejudicial to UK national security or international relations, the Cabinet Office will refer that material to the independent Intelligence and Security Committee. The Prime Minister has written to the ISC, and senior officials have met the Committee to discuss what it requires in order to fulfil that role. As I said in the House last week, full resources will be made available to ensure that process happens, and we will work with the Committee to explain the Cabinet Office’s process for providing material relating to national security or international relations. The Government are very grateful to the ISC for its work, and we commit to full engagement with it to ensure timely and effective release.”
“In that statement, my right hon. Friend also set out how the Government are responding to the Humble Address motion, and I am pleased to provide a further update to the House today. The Government will comply fully and publish documents as soon as possible. As I said in the House last week, we welcome both the principle and content of that motion, and we will deliver on it as soon as we can. As such, Departments have been instructed to retain any material that may be relevant, and work is under way to identify documents that fall within the scope of the motion. We will do so as soon as possible when the House returns from recess.”
“Last week, the House made a Humble Address to His Majesty for the Government to disclose material surrounding the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States of America. On Monday, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister updated the House on further action that the Government are taking. My right hon. Friend confirmed that the Government will bring forward legislation to ensure that peerages can be removed from disgraced peers, and that Peter Mandelson will be removed from the list of Privy Counsellors. He also explained how we have changed the process for relevant direct ministerial appointments, including politically appointed diplomatic roles. He also set out other areas where we recognise the need to go further, including tightening transparency and lobbying.”
“The conversations with the Metropolitan police have, as Mr Speaker pointed out, the primacy of this place at heart, but we also, as the House would expect, do not want to prejudice an ongoing police investigation. We are just working our way through that. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Cabinet Secretary. Obviously, it would not be appropriate for a Cabinet Office Minister to talk about the Cabinet Secretary—”
“I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that. Let me try to rattle through those questions. First, and most importantly, we will comply fully. I made that clear in the House. The Government accept the principle and the content of the motion, and we will comply fully with it. A large amount of material—this touches on the scoping question—is potentially in play here, and it goes much broader than other Humble Addresses. That is not a criticism; it is just a factual observation about how long it will take to get through the material. The scoping has begun, and the Cabinet Office is working through that. I will update the House as soon as I can with more. We hope to publish the first tranche when the House comes back from recess. As I say, the scoping is being worked through.”
“That is outside the scope of this Humble Address and outside the scope of the papers, so the urgent question does not touch on that.”
“Thankfully, I am no longer an adviser. I am a Cabinet Office Minister, and it would not be appropriate for a Cabinet Office Minister to talk about the Cabinet Secretary. Let me reassure the House that the Cabinet Office is working hard and diligently on this. That process is ongoing. Any speculation around the Cabinet Secretary does not affect the process. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Palantir, and I committed to write to him. I have spoken to officials about that, and I promise we will get that to him. There was an urgent question on this matter, which I think the Ministry of Defence responded to, and which provided an update, but I promise I will come back to him on that. Finally, the right hon. Gentleman touched on Lord Doyle.”
“Everyone in this House has been sickened and dismayed by the revelations from all the Epstein papers that have come through and in relation to what my hon. Friend just said. That is outside the scope of this Humble Address, and it is a matter for the Palace to respond to.”
“The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that victims should remain at the heart of this. In answer to his question on the legislation to strip Lord Mandelson of his peerage and on broader reform of the House of Lords process for removal, that will come forward as soon as possible. It will be in Government time, as I committed to last week, and we will bring that forward after the recess. It is obviously a Cabinet Office matter, so the Cabinet Office is accountable, but obviously the Prime Minister is accountable for this as well. As I say, we will comply fully with the motion, and we will publish material as soon as we can.”
“Yes, I absolutely do. As I say, we will comply fully and as quickly as possible. I completely accept my hon. Friend’s point about the removal process for the other place, and it is inexplicable that that is still the case. The sooner we can update that, the better.”
“There is no part of the revelations about Lord Mandelson that I am not dismayed and appalled at. On the hon. Gentleman’s broader point, I am afraid I am not across the detail. That is one for the Secretary of State’s team to reply to.”
“The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend’s question is that I have no idea. On the second part of her question, and as I have promised the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) twice, we will give a full written reply about the Palantir contract, which concerns the Cabinet Office, as soon as possible.”
“As I said in the House last week in response to a question from the former Attorney General, full resourcing will be given to the ISC to do that. I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point about how we work that through between the two teams. That is being worked out with the ISC and the Cabinet Office at the moment, and I am confident that it can be resolved. He pointed to the political composition of the ISC. I think it is fair to say that no Members of this House would want to imply that the ISC is not impartial, responsible and entirely qualified to do this. It was important that the ISC was included in last week’s motion, and it is important to have that on the record.”
“The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister set that out to the House on Monday, and we will come forward with further detail soon. This is an important part of restoring trust, and it cannot just be about reacting to the specifics of the Mandelson revelations. There needs to be much broader consideration of lobbying and the transparency of our politics. This should not be a political point, because it is about all Governments and all parties at different times, but our politics is at a low point of public trust at the moment, and we need to rebuild it.”
“To conclude my answer, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister set out the specifics on Monday. We will come forward with further details, and we will tighten transparency regulations as well.”
“As I say, scoping is under way. I cannot give a precise number at the moment, because there may be a large amount of information covering a long period of time. I am afraid that I cannot give a date, but the Cabinet Office is working closely with the ISC to deliver the information as quickly as possible, and to do so in the right order of priorities.”
“The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister set this out on Monday. We are looking at the enhanced security vetting that comes in when there is a direct appointment. The Prime Minister and his Chief Secretary have set out the plans to reform that, and—I may be corrected if I am wrong—if they have not already come in, they will be coming in very quickly. The reform will come in as soon as possible, so we can tighten this up.”
“The Prime Minister has made it very clear that there needs to be a managed process that the Cabinet and Ministers agree with. Such information will be published in the right fashion, and it is important that there is a proper process. We need to agree across the Cabinet and Ministers how that will happen, and that is what is going to happen.”
“My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is a broader problem in our politics than the specific issue that Mandelson highlights. The Prime Minister made it clear on Monday and at the Dispatch Box yesterday that this needs to change and that he will drive through that cultural change. I would also point to the very wide-ranging and groundbreaking violence against women and girls strategy that this Government have published. Having worked with the Prime Minister as long as I have, I know he cares passionately about it and is determined to drive it through.”
“As I say, the Government are looking at legislation that addresses the broader question of how to remove people from the Lords; it will be broad legislation, rather than just for specific cases. The sooner it comes to the House and we can consider it, the better. The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point in his second question—I am afraid I really do not know the answer. I imagine it is a question that a lot of people are considering; I will come back to him on it.”
“My hon. Friend makes the point incredibly powerfully. It is one that we have lost somewhat in the discussion about technicalities around the process, but it is the central point that we should be trying to address. As I say, the Prime Minister has committed to driving through change and ensuring that this Government reflect that. We are bringing forward the groundbreaking, long-overdue violence against women and girls strategy, but there needs to be much broader cultural change as well.”
“As I said, I am not going to comment on the Cabinet Secretary—it is not appropriate for a Cabinet Office Minister to do so. I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that the process is under way in the Cabinet Office and that it is unaffected by other matters.”
“Yes, absolutely; as I say, we will be fully transparent and comply fully with the motion, and we will do so as quickly as possible. My hon. Friend’s second point is the central point to which we need to return throughout this debate and going forward.”
“Yes, I agree. As I have said, we expect to be able to start publishing this material as soon as possible after the recess. We will do that as quickly as we can. The hon. Lady’s broader point about public confidence is essential. It is why I tried to emphasise in the debate last week—as heated as it occasionally got—that we want to comply, and to get to the bottom of this. There is no one on the Government Benches who does not want to get to the bottom of the lies that Mandelson told and the problems that led to. It is about broader public confidence and trust. We need to demonstrate that this House is not reflected by the acts of Mandelson et al., and that this House is instead about doing public good and public service. The publication of the material is an important part of getting to that.”
“I think the hon. Member is referring to severance pay. I think the Foreign Office is providing an update on that. I am afraid it is not a question that I can provide an answer to.”