[0:00]of the origins of the humble address and when I was a political adviser on the Brexit team in opposition these looked a bit more clever than they do today. Um so I thank him for that uh and the spirit who did it but in particular I
[0:11]want to thank and highlight the speech by my honorable friend for bullsover who I thought made an incredibly powerful uh and commanding speech and rightly put the voice of victims in this
[0:22]house uh and she did so brilliantly. So thank you >> for that. Uh Mr. Speaker, it's clear from all sides of the House today that they share the public's anger at
[0:32]Mandlesson's treachery, his lies, and his deceit. As the prime minister said earlier, Mandlesson betrayed this country. He betrayed Parliament. He
[0:42]betrayed my party and he betrayed our government. He He lied I'll just make a little progress and I will if that's okay. He lied to the prime minister. He lied during the vetting process, which I
[0:53]will return to because a number of members raised it. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I suspect he's still lying now. And that's why since that's why since new information came to light, the prime minister over the weekend, the prime
[1:05]minister has acted in a number of ways. Firstly, on Monday, I will I will I will I will just let me complete this another uh on Monday uh the prime minister instructed the cabinet secretary to investigate all papers released by the
[1:16]US uh department of justice. The uh um uh chief secretary to the prime minister also set out this to this house in a statement. On Tuesday, the cabinet secretary decided to refer certain
[1:28]material to the police with the prime minister's support and subsequently the police have launched a full investigation with which we will cooperate fully and must go everywhere the evidence takes it. I will give way
[1:39]if you first the honorable gentleman there. >> I think it's Dr. Kira pretty underhand of the minister to make himself the champion of public anger about the person Mandlesson was because I can tell you what the house is angry about on
[1:51]both sides. It's not just with Mandlesson. It's with the prime minister for appointing him in the first place. >> Minister, >> as a prime minister said many times, if he'd have known what he knows now, he
[2:01]wouldn't have had him within a million miles of government. And that is absolutely right. I will give one to my honorable friend. >> So, Julia Lewis, >> I'm very grateful to to the minister for
[2:12]giving way. I'll try and make the same point but in a less emotional way. Now the prime minister was asked today
[2:22]directly could he tell us did the official security vetting that he received mention Mandelson's ongoing relationship with the pedophile Jeffrey
[2:34]Epstein and he replied yes it did. Now the point is that when the minister says he lied to the prime minister but the
[2:45]prime minister knew that the relationship was ongoing. So even if he lied about some other aspects of the
[2:55]relationship, cannot the minister see that the fact there was any ongoing relationship at all with a man who'd been imprisoned for pedophilia and
[3:06]prostitution. Can he not see that that was an impossible position to defend and no subsequent lies or revelations alter the
[3:18]fact that the prime minister appointed him when he knew that he >> in that relation can I thank him for that as the prime minister said he was
[3:28]lied to repeatedly uh by mag and the scope the scope of the due diligence which I will come to the vetting process in a minute but the scope of the due diligence is within scope of this uh humble address it will be released you
[3:40]can the house will be able to see for itself uh this process I'll just make a little progress if that's okay and then I will I will come back to it um alongside further steps the prime minister has made uh in the last week uh
[3:50]he has recommended to the king uh that Mandlesson be removed from the privy council he's instructed legislation this is the point the honorable member for north Dorset raised instruction legislation to be drawn up strip him of
[4:02]his title and for wider reform of the house of lords process um in answer your answer the question raised earlier. That legislation is imminent. It will be in government time. Uh and it will be
[4:13]brought to this house as soon as possible. Frankly, I wish it was already here now, but it will come very very soon and it will be in government time. >> I will give way to the honorable gentleman and then there that's okay. >> Grateful to the minister for giving way.
[4:23]Um but of course before the appointment of Peter Mandlesson as our ambassador, he was appointed as strategic advisor, consultant, advocate and planner for the
[4:35]2024 Labor Party general election campaign. And can I suggest that he was appointed and members opposite know this to be true because he was treacherous, because he was deceitful and because he
[4:46]was a liar, a master manipulator in political dark arts. That's why the prime minister appointed him. And there's no defense, is there? >> Prime Minister, >> just to be just to be clear, he was not
[4:57]appointed to any role in the 2024. I remember that campaign very, very well. Um, and honorable members to clear up two other points that were raised in this debate. As honorable members made very very clear earlier, he had no role
[5:08]in candidate selection at all. That is done by the NEC and through the rule book. Absolutely no role in it. He had absolutely just finished. He had absolutely no role or say in any
[5:18]reshuffle either. And for honorable members just to keep repeating it, it is absolutely fundamentally untrue. >> Who are you giving way to? I've got
[5:27]four. [laughter] >> Which one? There's a few. There we are. Call Harriet Cross. >> Thank the minister for giving way. Just say the minister was appointing his own
[5:38]new member of staff and he knew that member of staff had twice lost a job in the past because of misdemeaners. If he then also knew for that member of staff
[5:48]had relationships continuing with a convicted pedophile, would the minister give him a job? >> Yes or no? >> She tempts me into hypotheticals I'm not going to get to if that's all right. Um
[6:00]but let me answer some other let me answer I'm going to make some progress if that's all right because there are a number of questions raised and I want to I will I will I will uh I want to make some progress uh please
[6:11]because uh a number of people raised me question of vetting which I want to come to and the chair of the the chair of the foreign affairs committee outlined this process a little earlier uh and I just so I just want to clarify that but she
[6:22]she was absolutely right in what she said uh before Madison's appointment there were two distinct and separate processes firstly within the cabinet office where due diligence was followed
[6:32]in exactly the usual fashion for this type of appointment and a second process which is national security vetting undertaken by UKSV uh the UK secure I'll
[6:42]just complete this point by UK security vetting I want to be very clear with the house none of that was skipped nothing was removed from the usual process um and we have as the pay master general
[6:53]set out earlier strengthened the vetting process further I will give way to the honorable reading and then I'll give way to the honorable gentleman behind. >> Thank you. I thank the honorable gentleman for giving way. Um I wonder if
[7:04]I could ask him. The prime minister said clearly today that he knew when he appointed Peter Mandlesson to the job as his majesty's ambassador that he knew that he had an ongoing relationship with
[7:13]a ped with pedophile epste. So can the minister tell us what sort of relationship he thinks would be acceptable in pointing such a person? Yeah. >> Yeah. >> For this stuff,
[7:24]>> as the prime minister made clear, he was lied to repeatedly by Peter Manderson. This >> uh and information that was in the is in the vetting report which will be published to the house. I give I'll give I will give way to the honorable
[7:35]gentleman Shel. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the minister for giving way. But the question, Mr. Speaker, um through the minister is this. The prime minister
[7:46]stood at the dispatch box and said he knew. [clears throat] >> When the minister says that documents will be released and the veteran will be released, that's all irrelevant, Mr. Speaker, because we're not interested in
[7:57]what he said because the prime minister said that he knew. >> So the question is this, why did the prime minister feel that that was appropriate to appoint one of the most
[8:08]senior ambassadors in the world? That's got nothing to do with vetting. This gets to the heart of the prime minister's judgment. >> This award, as I say, the prime minister
[8:19]um look, before Madison was appointed, there were reports obviously linking him with Epstein. Um this was looked into as part of the vetting process. Madison lied to the prime minister. He hid information. When new information came
[8:31]out, he removed it from it. This information will come out. We'll be pro further. I'm not I'm going to make some progress and come actually come to the motion if that's okay. I'm going to >> the minister. >> I will I will give way to my own. It's
[8:42]the first one from behind me. >> The minister >> just just a bit >> in furnace to the minister has given way time and time on this side and quite rightly is giving way to them. So don't
[8:53]feel you've been outdone to please. >> Thank you Mr. Speaker.
[9:05]Will the minister agree with me that the reason we are here today is because of the brave women that have spoken out and led us here? That we have a responsibility, a shared responsibility
[9:17]as a house >> to make sure that no stone is unturned. >> And as a government, we will absolutely make sure that the victims at the heart
[9:28]of the pedophile Epstein's crimes get the justice they deserve. We carry on calling out this behavior wherever we see it and we make sure that now we are
[9:39]in government. We will do everything we can to h have violence against women and girls. It comes too little too late but
[9:47]is needed now more than ever. >> I absolutely agree. I couldn't have put it I couldn't have come anywhere near as well as that. And the honorable lady made as I say an incredibly powerful
[9:57]speech earlier. Uh she quoted Virginia Grey in her speech at length. I thought that was an extraordinarily powerful way uh to make the point and she made it better than anyone because it's the victims we should have in mind. I'm
[10:09]going to I will give way. I will give way one more time and then I will come to the motion if that's all right. >> Current >> I appreciate the minister for giving way. One of my concerns has been that when Manderson was our ambassador in uh
[10:19]in DC, he was responsible for a very large embassy. Now there may have been members of the foreign office staff there who have survived rape or sexual assault or they may well have been sexual assaults during his tenure of
[10:31]ambassador. Can I confirm that foreign office ministers have reviewed all HR decisions he made while he was there as ambassador to make sure that any women who had any concerns about treatment or
[10:41]they were there spoken to or things they reported receive the support that they deserved. >> I thank her for for that point. Look, anyone who obviously will make any allegation or any report of that would
[10:53]obviously be be treated seriously. I will take it up with foreign office ministers if that's okay and come back to her because she does raise an incredibly serious point. Uh I will give way one more time to the former attorney general if that's okay and then I will >> I'm extremely grateful to the minister
[11:05]of giving way and I know he wants to move on to the motion but just before he does the point was raised by my honorable friend with the shadow minister but I'd be grateful for some reassurance from him. He's moved the
[11:15]manuscript amendment. If the House today passes this motion with the manuscript amendment detached, then a volume of material will reach the Intelligence and Security Committee. He knows that our
[11:26]administrative resources are limited and we do not know what volume of material may be coming our way. The House will expect us to do a thorough job. We will seek to do one. But can I ask him to
[11:37]reassure me and the house that the committee will have the additional administrative resources it needs if it needs them in order to uh consider that material properly?
[11:48]>> Uh can I thank him for that and uh for the way for the speech he made earlier and the point he's making this? Absolutely yes. I completely recognize the point he's making. This there is a lot of documents covered by the motion here. That's not a complaint. The
[12:00]authority and respect of this house. They need the resources to go with it. We will ensure that if that happens in the usual way. I I'm going to go to the motion if that's okay. >> I'm going one more time and then the
[12:12]motion. I thank uh the minister for giving way. Could he confirm on the floor of the house that the government will also include details of how the government managed conflicts of interest
[12:23]between Peter Mandlesson's shareholding in global council and his activities as ambassador? And specifically, could he look at the background and come back to
[12:32]the house on two contracts, one to Adural Technologies and one to Palanteer, which were direct award contracts of which at least one of those
[12:43]uh clients was a client of global council. >> Can I thank him for that? And as I mentioned at the beginning, uh the the way he way he went about this speech as well. Um look, the humble address we'll
[12:54]cover is that that will be within scope of the humble address that will happen. And if there are specific further points regarding direct procurements that the cabinet office needs to look at, I I will I will write to him and come from
[13:04]the from yesterday. I I will intercept the opposition uh spokesman question. >> Um I'm very grateful to the minister for giving way and he's being very generous with his time. Um the uh the h the
[13:15]humble address is obviously about Lord Mandlesson's appointment. However, the point raised by my right honorable friend was about two contracts, at least
[13:26]one of which was uh went to by direct award, a business that was a client of global council. The prime minister met
[13:36]that company whilst in Washington. It did not appear on his register of interest. Will the minister assure the house that the cabinet secretary will
[13:45]look into the process that led up to that direct award? Minister >> um as said the humble we we will deal with what's in firstly first everything in the humble address we will deal with
[13:56]on that point I will ask the cabinet I will write back to him I will write back to the honorable gentleman as well and I will follow up with the cabinet secretary on that point if that's okay >> I'm going to get to the motion then I promise I will give away because having tried having tried I'm going to get to the motion I'm going to get to the
[14:08]motion now as I said the government expects the spirit purpose and intent of the opposition motion um and we want to provide transparency and drain the swamp
[14:19]of Mandlesson's lies. The amendment we have the member the manuscript amendment we've put forward has two important point two important points in it. One on national security and one on foreign relations. I want to cover those quickly
[14:31]and then I will take interventions on national security as the prime minister said from this dispatch box and has said more times to me over the years I've known him than I can remember is his number one priority and he will never
[14:41]compromise on that. That is why we wanted it in the motion and that's why we wanted it in front of the house. There is a precedent for this within the humble address as we mentioned. I think my writer, one of my writing friends
[14:51]mentioned earlier uh in the uh humble address we did regarding Lebadev which included the words and I quote uh in a form which may contain redactions but
[15:01]such redactions shall be solely for the purposes of national security. So the intention is to abide with that spirit and the intention is to make a very clear point on national security. But I will come to how this is going to be
[15:12]done by the ISC and the cabinet secretary in a second. On international relations, as the prime minister said, these documents which are significant in the in number could well touch on
[15:22]sensitive issues of intelligence, trade or uh relations with other countries. For example, we would not inadvertently want to release information about what
[15:32]our red lines are in trade agreements uh about peace negotiations and position on things like Ukraine, Middle East or Sudan. uh or on sensitive assessments
[15:42]made uh on uh on a lot on our allies and diplomatic conversations on our life depends. The point of the amendment is that we are trying to address that and to make that clear within the house and
[15:53]we're trying to balance transparency with national security and that is what the minister I will give way to the honorable gentleman uh the right honorable gentleman behind and then I'll give way then I thank I thank the
[16:04]minister for giving way and no disrespect to intelligence security committee but he would have heard the uh points of order from the member for Hazen Harington and myself earlier. I
[16:14]think we need to know that there is a timetable for this inquiry. We need to know that it is not going to rule out specifically commercial interests such
[16:24]as Palanteer and not investigate them. And we need to know that it's also going to investigate the whole web of influence that Peter Mandlesson had over so much in government uh which has
[16:35]brought about this dreadful position where we end up appointing somebody who's a friend of a pedophile as the ambassador to Washington because there are many people looking at this debate
[16:45]today who will not be happy that parliament merely shoves it off to a committee of its own when they think there should be a wider public interest inquiry into the whole affair.
[16:57]Minister, >> thank him for that. Look, the police investigation will go wherever it needs to. It will cover any criminality or allegations thereof. That is the right way to do it. Uh and nothing I say will
[17:08]be hidden in that fashion. With permission, Mr. Speaker, I am going to make some progress here because time is time is pushing. I will give one a second. Time is pushing now. Um so let me come to the manuscript. So we will
[17:18]agree with the ISC how they're going to work with us and scrutinize it and I welcome the commitment made uh earlier on as the pay master general set out early the process for deciding what falls in scope will be led by the
[17:30]cabinet secretary supported by cabinet office lawyers working with the ISC the cabinet secretary will take independent advice on the decision he's taken and it
[17:39]will take two forms first through independent cs secondly through scrutiny of the approach he's taking working directly handinhand with the ISC. Now the cabinet
[17:51]secretary will write to the ISC setting out that process. He will meet with them regularly to ensure they are content with it and in line with the manuscript amendment papers determined to be
[18:00]prejuditial to national security or in international relations will be referred let me finish please will be referred to the ISC. The ISC are independent. They
[18:10]are rigorous. They are highly respected. they are they will then decide what to do with the material that is sent to them. >> I will give >> I'm going to give way to the honorable
[18:20]lady to >> thank you Mr. speaker and I thank my honorable friend for giving way or just for further clarity. It's a the concern I think people have is that there will be a decision made by the government in
[18:32]the form of the cabinet secretary about what is referred to the ISC. What we are keen to know is that the that the bulk of the documents will be in the hands of the ISC and they can make the decision about what needs to be kept private and
[18:44]what should be uh made public. Can the minister clarify that the IC will have control over what needs to be kept private and what can be made public? The release of information will be done
[18:55]in the way I just set out either through the cabinet secretary working with independent lawyers about about what work or if if material is deemed to be conflict potentially conflicted with
[19:05]national security or foreign relations. It will be hand to the IC who are independent and can make decisions. And to to the point the honorable member made earlier, this is the really crucial point I want to make. There will not be
[19:15]political involvement from ministers. There will not be political involvement from number 10 in this process. This is the cabinet secretary and the ISC working with lawyers on it.
[19:24]>> I will give way one more time and then gentleman behind. I thank I thank the minister for giving way but I really must push him because he is giving conflicting messages here. At one stage
[19:35]he said that the direct contract award would be in scope of the uh committee. He has now said without committing any time scales. He has now said that the
[19:47]scope of that of the releasing of documents is now a matter for the cabinet secretary with no political involvement. >> He has stood at the dispatch box as the political minister to say that that direct contract award will be in scope.
[19:59]Will it be or not? any any correspondence uh involving Peter Manderson in this is within scope that will be looked at as I say by the cabinet secretary who will make decisions based on with independent
[20:10]lawyers and working with the ISC on it. I'm going to give way one more time to the honorable gentleman. >> Yeah. Can I I thank the the the honorable my honorable friend. Uh can I give assurance that we're very confident
[20:21]in the scene that we can do an effective job on this and I think it's worth pointing out we we we will cannot we cannot be told what we can not cannot publish. that will be a matter of decision for us to do so. But can I also
[20:33]ask for a an assurance uh from going following on what he's just said is that the there will be no block whatsoever on documents that the ISC should be getting.
[20:45]>> Yes, I can confirm that and can I thank him for he is huge expertise in this. I can confirm that and we will work uh with the ISC on this. I'm I'm not I'm not going to give away anymore. Uh there are four there are four five minutes to
[20:56]go. I will I will make some progress if that's okay. Um, Mr. Speaker, as the prime minister also mentioned today, uh, the Metropolitan the the there will also have to be discussions with the Metropolitan Police over material. The Metropolitan Police have issued a
[21:08]statement today around material that will be released. So, I just want to confirm to the house the material will not be released today because of the um conversation with the with the Metropolitan Police over that, but it
[21:19]will be released as quickly as possible in line with the process uh set out before the House. >> I will give way cuz I said I would earlier to her. I thank the minister. He has set out the
[21:30]difference between national security matters and issues which may be embarrassing to the government because let's face it, practically anything could damage international relations with Donald Trump. Who knows what he's
[21:41]going to take events at. But the process he has just outlined implies that the cabinet secretary has to scrutinize every bit of information before deciding whether it gets released or whether it
[21:52]gets to the ISD. How long is that going to take? Will he give us assurance of the volume of material he anticipates sending to the IST and the timetable? What will be the deadline for releasing
[22:02]that material either into the public domain or to the ISC? >> As I say, the timeline will be as soon as possible. We want to get on with this. We want to get with this. There is a lot of material here to go through. We
[22:13]will get through this as quickly as possible. Other humble other humble addresses have taken a number of weeks or months. We will want to be as quick as possible and we will work with the IC as soon as we can on this to get it to get it uh progressing and I hope she
[22:25]welcomes the spirit we take on. I just want to deal with two more points as there will be no more no more I'm afraid. I'm so sorry I needed to two more points on the public inquiry which a number of members uh mentioned. As I say there is an ongoing police inquiry
[22:36]that has the freedom and cooperate freedom to go where it wants and the cooperation of everyone in government. We believe that along with the process we have set out is the right way. Two because I will not give away anymore. I'm I'm I'm not I will not give away
[22:47]anymore. Um uh I shall give away. Go on >> the lease midley. >> Thank you Mr. Speaker. Can the minister just clarify clearly that the
[22:59]documentation will go to the ISC and they will be the decision makers in terms of what is a risk to national security and international relations and
[23:09]should be in the public domain and not the cabinet secretary. Minister >> let me uh let me try one more time. Um it will be it will be either been made public by the cabinet secretary
[23:21]>> or it will go to the IC and they will have a decision for it to be made through them and it will be done with the independence resources and in and uh Mr. Speaker no I'm writing up now Mr.
[23:32]Speaker Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely right for the House to have debated this incredibly important issue today and in the spirit it has. And I do want to thank honorable members and rightful members for that. As I said, the lies,
[23:43]venality, and treachery of Mandlesson. Shameless house and I, the prime minister, and I know honorable members all around me have nothing but contempt for the way he acted and lied to the British people. I'm glad this will now
[23:55]be shown to the British people. I share the anger, the disgust of so many other members of this house. And Mr. Mr. Speaker, we will comply with this motion, the amended motion. We will update the house on progress with that.
[24:05]And in with that in mind, Mr. Speaker, I beg to move the manuscript amendment in the name of THE PRIME MINISTER. >> DO IT AFTERWARDS. >> The question is that amendment A be made
[24:15]since when an amendment to the amendment has been proposed as follows. That amendment at the end of the amendment A and which shall instead be referred to
[24:25]the intelligence and security committee parliament. The question is the amendment be made and proposed amendment be made as many of that opinion say I >> I
[24:37]THE GODS READ all I think the eyes have it the eyes have it >> right the question is that amendment A as amended be made as many of that opinion
[24:48]SAY I >> I >> OF THE COUNTRY know I think the eyes have it the eyes have it the question is that the motion as amended to be agreed
[24:57]to as many of that opinion SAY I >> I OF the >> of the contary. No, I think the eyes have it. >> The I have it. Right.
[25:09]That completes. Are you ready, Caroline? >> Right. Sorry. A point of order. Simon Horn. Mr. >> Speaker, it's it's in relation to the point that the minister made with
[25:18]regards to the Metropolitan Police asking that certain documents are not released um in case they prejudiced a trial or an
[25:29]investigation. You know as well as I do, sir, the importance of privilege to this place. Will you be will your office and councel be working with the cabinet office to
[25:40]ensure that the rights and privileges of members of this house are protected? >> Can just say we're not going to continue the debate but just the summer. The question with the Metropolitan Police,
[25:50]the Metropolitan Police have no jurisdiction on what this house may wish to do. It will be whether the government provides or not. But just to let you
[26:00]know, they cannot dictate to this house. I'm going to leave it at that. I'm not going to continue the debate. It's been a long debate, an important debate. Let
[26:09]us move on. >> Order. Order. I will now announce the
[26:20]result of today's deferred division draft greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme amendment order 2026.
[26:30]The eyes were 392. The nose were 116. So the eyes have it. The eyes have it.
[26:41]>> Motion number three on climate change. Minister to move. >> I beg to move. >> The question is as on the order paper.
[26:51]As many as are of that opinion say I. >> I. >> Of the contrary. NO. >> NO. THE division is deferred until Wednesday
[27:02]next >> petition Ian room. >> Thank you.
[27:11]>> Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker. Further to our online petition signed by over 3,000 people calling for the Tarka
[27:20]rail line to be futurep proofed. I present this petition on behalf of rail passengers in northern Devon who have suffered overcrowding and repeated
[27:30]service disruption due to flooding this winter despite a record-breaking 1 million rail journeys per year between
[27:38]Barnstable and Exit. Following Storm Chandra, all trains have been cancelled. North Devon's Rail Link has been shut for over a week and will not resume for
[27:50]several more days. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the government to ask Network Rail and Great Western Rail to
[28:01]prioritize the Tarka line for improvements and to work together to make rail travel in North Devon more resilient. and the petitioners remain etc.
[28:12]>> Here Petition the Tarker line.
[28:44]I beg to move that this house do now adjourn. >> The question is that this house do now adjourn. Steve Race. >> Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker. Um,
[28:54]since its establishment in 1964, the CITB has been the industry-ledd and funded training board for the UK construction industry and at present as an arms length body of the Department for Work and Pensions. And so, I thank
[29:05]the minister for being here to respond. The CITB are tasked, in their words, with ensuring a safe, professional, and fully qualified construction industry and to address critical skills
[29:14]shortages. As members will no long agree, some things do not change. And indeed, we are grappling today with those very same challenges as we commit to delivering new infrastructure, a regeneration of our public realm, and of
[29:25]course, the need to build much needed new homes right across the country. The CITB has always been self-funded by the sector with powers granted under the legislation to collect a levy from private and construction firms. In
[29:36]return for this levy, the CITB's role is to redistribute to sector firms the grants, funds, and subsidies for training. This sectorwide approach has meant that skills are transferable and the cost of training is equitably shared
[29:47]between smaller and larger construction firms. And Madam Speaker, this is one of the ways in which the whole sector benefits. As any of us here knows, when we dawn our hard hats and visit construction sites, every project
[29:57]involves a huge range of large and small firms in brick laying, carpentry, electricians, plumbers, and so on. It is rare if ever that any project could be completed solely with one large firm.
[30:08]Indeed, just last Friday, I visited the St. Michael's Meadow Housing Development in my extra constituency to congratulate the site manager Roy and his trainee site manager Sam, who have been awarded the seal of excellence award in the NHBC
[30:19]pride in the job awards. Um, while there I also met Dylan and Ree, two carpentry apprentices, both of whom are reaching the end of their apprentichip training with Barrett Red and one of whom is headed directly into the specialist
[30:30]carpentry firm that Barrett Redrow works with on their projects. That is the way that the industry works and so the CITB has long reflected this in its engagement in and in particular through its stewardship and funding for CITB
[30:42]local training groups. >> Of course, >> Madame Deputy Speaker, first of all, can I commend the honorable gentleman for bringing this forward? He's absolutely right. He's been in his time in this chamber, he's been an insidious and
[30:53]committed and very very industrious MP for his custodian. Thank him for that. We have something similar in Northern Ireland called the CITBNI similar to the very one the very uh one
[31:03]that Del has referred to on the mainland key support including up some 6,500 for apprentices over three years 50% grant for net zero training. They're an absolute lifesaver for small contractors
[31:15]who can no longer afford the cost of apprenticeships when the cost of insurance alone for the apprentice is almost as costly as our wage. >> Steve, >> I thank the member for his um intervention and I hope the minister will cover those points at the end. But
[31:27]I think that as we as we grapple with the um cost rising in the construction firms, we need to support them as I hope CITB will be uh in the future. Um so this is the way that the industry works and so the C CITB has long reflected
[31:38]that engagement. The local training groups have been vital in supporting micro and small employers to form local networks. Of course, >> thank you honorable member for exitive
[31:48]for giving way. And I wonder if the honorable member will agree with me that losing the skills and expertise of those local training groups like the Plymouth Construction Training Group, which was formed in 1977
[32:00]um and has been funded by the CITB as he's alluded to in exchange for the proposed centralized delivery from CITB in London is actually a retrograde step and therefore risks losing those local
[32:10]construction skills. Grace, >> I thank the member for her intervention and I fear that she might be right and I'll be going on some of those issues and some of the feedback that I've had from local training groups across country and from small firms as well. Um
[32:22]the group has been vital in supporting micro small employers to form local networks, helping them to forge closer ties, providing these businesses with local and lowcost training options and with a paid officer who holds a wealth
[32:34]of local knowledge and experience. However, madame Deputy Speaker, the National CITB has chosen to defund all 55 training groups across the country, choosing to close the network down and reallocate the funding elsewhere. This
[32:45]was brought to my to me by brought to my attention by Mr. Peter Lucas, a constituent of mine who runs a carpentry business and who has been the chair of the National Training Group Chairs Committee. He impressed upon me the good
[32:57]localized work that training boards have been doing. He told me that training groups connect employers with training in everything from how to use a dusk mask properly to mast's degrees. A really broad spectrum of training for
[33:07]the sector. Training groups work with schools and colleges to promote construction with talks and information about the sector. And they signpost people into the appropriate apprenticeships programs. They also save the CITB vast amounts of money on
[33:19]training courses as training groups source them cheaper at a n than at a national level. They meet up and exchange ideas and best practice from the whole of the great uh from across the whole of Great Britain with everyone
[33:29]gaining more knowledge. Each training group has until this year been given $35,000 from CITB to fund their group training officer. Money that does come from the levy that members of the
[33:39]training groups have paid to the CITB. Without the grant, the training groups will likely close and with the loss of the groups, vital local networks and local knowledge will be lost. Certainly,
[33:50]the local training group for Devon has been a success and is wellliked. Indeed, one of the reasons I applied for this debate was not just because of the compelling case put to me by Mr. Lucas, but also because of the outcry from local firms when I posted about my
[34:01]meeting. Matthew Cousins, who runs Apex Scaffolding in my constituency, told me that as an active members of the local southwest CITB steering group, they are facing ongoing challenges in recruiting
[34:12]and retraining and retaining scaffolders. With an aging workforce and the increasing difficulty of attracting young people into this profession, they were very surprised that CITB has chosen to cease funding the training groups and
[34:23]especially considering the levy costs that employers are required to pay. >> Of course, I thank him for giving way and congratulate him on securing this important debate and I'd like to draw
[34:34]the house's attention to my chair of the GMBB parliamentary group and my membership of the Unite Trade Union um both of which organize workers in the construction sector. That quality of employment is extremely important.
[34:46]Historically the two uh construction engineering construction training boards had union representation on their boards. over the years. That reputation
[34:55]uh that um representation