PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Topical Questions - 5 March 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

May I take this opportunity to welcome the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Test (Satvir Kaur), back from maternity leave? I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith), on his Dispatch Box debut, and welcome Baroness Anderson in the other place, who has joined the Cabinet Office team today.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North has said, next week, we will launch a national conversation to ensure that the public have their say on how digital identification can be used to make modern public services. Digital ID will be free to access and secure, and will make it easier for people to prove who they are when logging into the gov.uk app. Over time, government by app will become a reality, much like banking or shopping by app. There will be quicker, easier and more secure access to public services at the touch of a button, which will ensure that our public services are there for people when they need them.

I thank the Minister for that response. Small businesses are the backbone of our local economies, but in my constituency, sunny Southend East and Rochford, they are held back by traffic congestion on the A127. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that local infrastructure projects, such as a new link road for south-east Essex, receive cross-party prioritisation, and can drive productivity and growth for small and medium-sized enterprises?

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.

I call the shadow Minister.

Yesterday, in the light of the new China spy case, I asked the Security Minister to place China on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. He told us that FIRS is “a relatively new tool”, and that the Government

“are seeking to ensure that we can derive the maximum operational capability from it.”—[Official Report, 4 March 2026; Vol. 781, c. 817.]

That is wonderful Whitehall language, but will he please tell us what it means?

The arguments about FIRS are well rehearsed, but I am old enough to remember when Conservative Members said that we would not introduce FIRS. Then they said that we would introduce it later than we had said we would. We introduced FIRS on time, but it is still a relatively new capability. I think that it offers considerable potential, in terms of what it will deliver for our country, but we are looking very closely at how we can ensure its maximum operational capability. I think that is pretty clear in any language.

Well, it is not very clear, because FIRS is three years old. This morning, I spoke to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), who established FIRS. When he was establishing it, MI5 told him that it was essential for understanding the operation of the Chinese state in the UK. The enhanced tier would impose mandatory registration and transparency requirements on individuals and organisations in the UK working with Chinese entities. I think most people in this House would now agree that that is entirely necessary. It is there to help our security services protect our country. Please will the Security Minister give us a date by which he will come back to this House to tell us definitively whether he will put China on the enhanced tier, and to set out his explanation?

On a simple point of fact, FIRS is not three years old. When we came into government, FIRS was not a properly developed system. [Interruption.] Opposition Members may groan, but it is a statement of truth that FIRS was not ready to go. This Government got a grip and introduced that tool. It came into force, in effect, on 1 October last year. We have already placed two countries on the enhanced tier. We take these decisions very carefully, but I give the hon. Gentleman a commitment that I will come back, when there is a requirement to do so, and update the House on any further decisions that we seek to make on FIRS.

I thank my hon. Friend for that really important question. We have undertaken an arm’s length body review, and it is making serious progress. We have already seen NHS England removed, to make sure that we bring our important services under democratic control. We are also looking to make a huge amount of savings in this area. I look forward to updating my hon. Friend and the House on progress shortly.

Both contracts that the hon. Gentleman refers to were negotiated by the previous Government; he might want to reflect on that. In both those contracts, we are reserving our contractual rights. The Cabinet Office has already withheld payments from Capita for not meeting particular milestones, so the hon. Gentleman can rest assured that we will use every lever in these contracts to enforce them.

I join my hon. Friend in congratulating his constituents. The Youth Parliament plays an important role in our democracy, and in engaging young people in it. With Mr Speaker’s consent, it has the benefit of coming to this Chamber to experience what it is like. The good news is that we have already had Members of Youth Parliament become Members of Parliament as a consequence of their experience; it did not warn them off. We look forward to welcoming more of them in future generations.

The hon. Lady is right that there is a counter-terror police operation under way, so it would be wrong for me to comment from the Dispatch Box, but I can reassure her and the House that the Government will co-operate fully with that investigation. When we are able to provide further updates, we will do so.

My hon. Friend makes a really important point. We have agreed an ambitious security and defence partnership with the EU. We are negotiating a deal on carbon emissions trading. We are in exploratory talks about an electricity agreement. All those things assist with our economic and energy security, and the Conservative party is opposed to them.

There is a robust recovery plan in place. On the specific case that the hon. Gentleman raises, if he could please ask his staff to escalate it up to me, I will look at it.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, and to the important work being done by the new Long Eaton Business Partnership. This is exactly the kind of project to which the Office for the Impact Economy adds value. I am very happy to meet him to discuss how that can be maximised in his constituency, to improve the neighbourhood for his constituents.

Given the progress made by the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, will the Paymaster General update the House? Over £140 million has been spent by the inquiry. Has he had any conversations with Sir Brian Langstaff on when will be the right time to close down that inquiry, and whether he has wider lessons about the way that public inquiries function?

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, and I again pay tribute to him for his work, over some time, on this matter. He is right to highlight the significant progress that has been made on the speed of payments. He also highlights a really important point about how we will learn lessons. It is really important to learn lessons about public inquiries, their length, and providing value for money going forward.

We are looking forward to welcoming the Paymaster General at a meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood in the near future. He knows my constituent Mary Grindley, who has been a prominent campaigner. She lost her husband, and since then has campaigned for over half her life for compensation. She has recently been in touch with me to say that those making claims for the loss of loved ones are concerned about the lack of speed with which payments are being made. Will he update the House in future, if not now, on progress in paying those who were affected, rather than infected?

The milestones that were set out for paying infected people were met by the end of 2025. The first payment to an affected person was also on time, and was made before the end of last year. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we are now moving into a new phase of paying affected people, which will clearly be a larger number. I will, of course, happily write to him with the precise figures on that.

In the light of the arrest of three individuals yesterday for Chinese espionage, can the Minister confirm that security vetting for all special advisers is up to date?

The hon. Member will remember, from the statement I gave to the House, that we are reviewing this policy area, as well as other areas to do with transparency and lobbying returns, as well as the work of the Ethics and Integrity Commission. We will come forward with further updates in due course.

The York Central 45-hectare development site will be the most powerful outside London. The Government have twice announced that they will have a government hub there. However, the Government Property Agency has not signed that off. The development is going to planning in May. Can the Minister give me an update on when we will hear the good news for York?

The Cabinet Office and Government Departments are in the process of concluding their business planning processes before the start of the new fiscal year, so an update will be available very soon.

I will take the question away, Mr Speaker.

Earlier this week, those of us on the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee took evidence from the Cabinet Office on the significant issues with the administration of the civil service pension scheme—issues that are plaguing many of our constituents. It was quite clear that poor contract management played a role, particularly in building up a significant backlog of cases ahead of the problematic transfer to Capita. What steps are being taken in the Cabinet Office to improve the management of contracts with private suppliers, so that this does not happen again?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and to PACAC for the work they are doing on this. As I indicated, our first priority is to deal with the immediate situation through hardship loans, and then through a robust recovery plan. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that management of these contracts and robust enforcement of contractual terms will be vital going forward.

A few moments ago, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster indicated to me that the appointment of the head of the propriety and ethics team was done by an external recruitment process. Will he tell me how many other people were interviewed?

If the hon. Gentleman is making reference to his previous question, he asked me if the appointment was in breach of the rules, to which I said no. As I have said to the House in answer to previous questions, the appointment of the head of propriety and ethics is on an interim basis, which is fully in line with the rules. A proper recruitment process will take place shortly.

There are still serious questions to answer on the administration of the civil service pension scheme. When my constituent Campell tragically died in April last year, his wife, Gaynor, waited months to receive the death in service payment; in December, they found out that MyCSP had paid it into the wrong bank account. I have written to the Minister about this case. Will he intervene to ensure that Capita pay Gaynor without further delay?

I am happy to look into the individual case, but I repeat that the Government reserve their right under both of these contracts, whether it is the existing Capita contract or MyCSP’s previous responsibilities, to take these matters up.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to return to this subject. It is very clear that the Government do not wish to have an investigation into what happened at the meeting between Lord Mandelson, the Prime Minister and Palantir, and everything that occurred between that meeting and the direct award given to Palantir later in the year. This is clearly a possible conflict of interest. Given that the Government do not wish to investigate the matter, what options are at the disposal of the House to force such an investigation?

I think you already know. I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. As we all know, he is a very experienced Member of the House, and I know that he has already tabled a written parliamentary question on this matter. I expect Ministers to give a full and frank answer. If he requires further advice on the options available to him, I am happy to pursue this matter with the Clerks and the Table Office, and I am always happy to meet him to see how we can move things forward. I believe the answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question will be honest and open. The only other thing I would expect is for it to be an early answer, and for it not to get lost in the system.