Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill (Sixth sitting)

Christian Matheson Excerpts

Committee Debate: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 13th June 2018 Public Bill Committees

[David Linden]

At least we have heard something from the Minister. I feel gratified that I have managed to move the Minister to say something in Committee after her coming here week after week.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Lord Bishop of Chester. Is he aware that I was with the bishop on Sunday afternoon to open to the new community centre at St Mary’s church in Handbridge in Chester?

[David Linden]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Perhaps he might be able to tell us what happened that day and what the bishop said to him?

[Christian Matheson]

It was a fantastic occasion on which the community came together to dedicate the new church building, which will serve large parts of the community in Handbridge and the southern part of the city of Chester.

[David Linden]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for enlightening us about that.

[David Linden]

That is a good question. Unfortunately, as a Member of the House of Commons, I have no opportunity to scrutinise lords, because they are, of course, unelected.

[Christian Matheson]

I suggest to my good friend the hon. Gentleman that we will not know whether their lordships support the Bill until it reaches them. A great way to test that would be for the Bill to complete its passage in this place and to move on to the other place, so that their lordships can have their say.

[David Linden]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that powerful intervention. He reminds us that, until such a time that the Government have the balls to bring forward a money resolution and allow the Bill to be considered clause by clause, line by line by the Committee, we will not have the opportunity to send it to our comrades in ermine along the corridor for them to scrutinise. It may well be, as the hon. Gentleman said—

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden]

Because the motion itself, and the proceedings of the Committee, are an absolute charade.

[Christian Matheson]

What a great pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I will again make the announcement that I made to the Committee last week, which is that I have taken the place of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith), who I am very pleased to say is on maternity leave. I am sure that Committee members continue to send her and her husband all the best.

I will not make such a long speech as my good friend the hon. Member for Glasgow East, but I express my regret that we are in the same position as we have been in for the last five weeks. I have not, of course; I am only a fairly new addition to the Committee so I have not had to go through the proceedings and processes quite as tortuously, but it is a matter of regret that we are not able to debate the Bill in detail, because the Government still refuse to bring forward a money resolution. Indeed, there seems to be a distinct lack of interest on the Government Benches in the Committee. However, it is good to see the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean in his place. I understand he has been an assiduous attender, and I respect that. It is good to see him here taking the Bill seriously.

I do not want to detain the Committee too long on a fruitless exercise. I simply want to ask the Minister whether she will take back—or has already taken back—to ministerial colleagues a sense of Members’ frustration at the lack of progress. Will she explain that after a clear decision on Second Reading there is, certainly among the Opposition, anxiety, disappointment and—dare I say it—something approaching anger? There is a sense of a certain contempt in the way the Bill is not being dealt with.

I respect the Minister for taking one for the team in this respect: she has to go through the process, and this is not about the hon. Lady herself. She is very well thought of. It is about the Government as a whole not taking their responsibility to the House seriously. I ask the Minister to take back to her colleagues the idea that they cannot keep kicking the matter into the long grass forever, and that at some point the Bill will have to be debated.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

It is good to see you in the Chair this week, Ms Dorries. I shall keep my remarks brief and, I hope, orderly.

I want to correct a factual point made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton. He said that the House of Commons did not support the instructions given to the boundary commissions for the current review. He is shaking his head, but I think that that is what he said. The House of Commons of course agreed the detailed rules setting out the current boundary review. I think it is important to acknowledge that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Christian Matheson Excerpts

Wednesday 6th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

As my right hon. Friend said in his question, we do not just call our servicemen and women heroes; they are heroes. They are incredibly brave and put themselves on the frontline for our safety. We owe a vast debt of gratitude to our servicemen and women, who have shown such heroism and bravery over the years.

We want to ensure that we do not see our servicemen and women—and, indeed, in relation to legacy issues in Northern Ireland, police officers—as the sole subject of investigations, which is what is happening at the moment. I want to ensure that terrorists are investigated for past crimes as well, which is why the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has launched the consultation on legacy issues. It is of course open to people to respond to that consultation. We should recognise the importance of ensuring that these matters are dealt with fairly and proportionately. I want to ensure that a focus is put on and investigation is possible for the terrorists, not just, as we see today, servicemen and women and police officers under investigation and terrorists not investigated.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

15. Will the Prime Minister tell the House whether her hostile environment immigration policy has been a success or a failure?

[The Prime Minister]

It is absolutely right that as a Government, over the years since 2010, we have taken action against illegal immigration. I am pleased to say that we have been removing illegal immigrants from this country and yes, we have tightened the conditions to ensure that we can take action against illegal immigrants. What is important is that we ensure that people who are here legally are not caught up in the actions intended for those who are here illegally. I hope that the Labour party will understand, recognise and support the need—sadly, one or two comments from those on the Labour party Front Bench suggest that they do not—to take action when people are here illegally.

Public Sector Pay Policy

Christian Matheson Excerpts

Tuesday 5th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. I offer my congratulations to my good friend, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), who has been a consistent advocate against this disastrous policy. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Easington (Grahame Morris), for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) and for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney), who have all given clear real-world examples of the effect of the public sector pay freeze.

The hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham) and my good friend and, dare I say it, fellow Cestrian, the hon. Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) talked about the genesis of the public sector pay freeze policy, which dates back to the financial crash. I will simply make the point that it was not public sector workers who created the financial crash, but they are the ones who still have to live with the detriment of it, seven to 10 years afterward, while it took Wall Street and the City of London only a couple of years to get back on the big bonus trail. But we are where we are.

The slogan is, “A country that works for everyone”, although that slogan has not aged particularly well. The country is on its knees, facing the largest inequality and division since the 1980s and early 1990s. As we have seen with failures such as Capita, G4S and Carillion, commercial failure is rewarded with more public funding, while our public sector services at the sharp end are being taken for granted.

[Luke Graham]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Christian Matheson]

Just the once. The hon. Gentleman was very generous with his time, which is why I cannot be too generous with mine.

[Luke Graham]

Understood. I have a quick question: the hon. Gentleman said that inequality had increased and was the worst since the 1980s. Can he quote the source of that data, please? I would dispute it.

[Christian Matheson]

First, I do not necessarily trust the figures from the current Government, because they are well known for cooking the books, but I genuinely suggest that the hon. Gentleman comes down to any food bank—

[Luke Graham]

That is not answering the question.

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

Order.

[Christian Matheson]

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman comes down to any food bank and finds out whether its recipients believe that equality is greater or worse.

The Government talk of lifting the public sector pay cap, but that is nothing more than a politically cute headline. After seven years of crippling pay freezes, the real-world consequences of the Government’s policies are half a million children of public sector workers in poverty, while Ministers have dished out a £70 billion tax break bonanza.

[Afzal Khan]

I want to make a point about the children. I have had many constituents come to me raising concerns about school assistant teachers. Some of them in the academies are earning £12,000—a poverty wage—while bosses routinely get salaries of £150,000. Does my hon. Friend agree that that injustice requires action and that we should look at instituting a maximum ratio for boss to worker pay in the public sector?

[Christian Matheson]

That would be a very interesting exercise, and we could certainly look at some of the sky-high pay for the bosses of some of the academy chains, but I will not go into the detail of that just now.

The problem with the modern Conservative party is that it is not at all modern. Old habits die hard. In addition to selling off public assets, they have now turned their attention to asset stripping our public sector workforce itself. As we know, the NHS is currently going through a mass exodus, with 10% of nurses leaving last year alone and over 100,000 vacancies across the service. The decision to scrap the pay freeze should have been made years ago. Landman Economics and the Trades Union Congress—I join colleagues across the House in paying tribute to the TUC on the 150th anniversary of its founding—estimate that there were real pay cuts and a loss of 13.3% between 2010 and 2018 for health and education workers, and 14.3% for public administration workers. Those figures have been reiterated by the Royal College of Nursing, which says that this has,

“damaged the morale and finances of NHS staff”.

Having spoken to numerous public sector constituents living from pay cheque to pay cheque and having to choose between heating or food, I suggest that that is a polite understatement.

[Dr Poulter]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I draw attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in making this intervention, but there has been great reliance on agency and temporary staff in both the education sector and the NHS as a result of the failure to retain and recruit staff in many areas. Does he agree that improving the terms and conditions and the pay of NHS staff would help to address that and would improve NHS finances overall, and that it is a short-sighted Treasury that does not take note of that point?

[Christian Matheson]

The hon. Gentleman is very experienced in matters of health and the NHS, and I suspect that what he says has real merit. Frankly, there are private companies offering bank staff across the NHS and making a large amount of money that would be better spent on frontline services and on paying staff more than the 1% pay cap. I thank him for his contribution.

We have all heard the heart-wrenching stories of public sector staff having to work two jobs to pay their bills or having to use food banks just to eat. This is modern Britain, where our greatest national treasure and our most valuable assets are treated with the same contempt and disregard that tax-dodging conglomerates have for our country. The Chancellor agreed to a below-inflation pay increase for NHS staff of 6.5% over three years on the condition,

“that the pay award enables improved productivity in the NHS”.

In real terms, that means forfeiting a day’s holiday each year for less money. Public sector workers have been cheated out of thousands, have had their pensions negatively affected and have now had their workload increased for less money.

If hon. Members visit any hospital, such as the Countess of Chester hospital in my constituency, they will see the NHS running on the goodwill of its staff. I know of health care assistants on wards who will work a 12-hour shift with barely a 10-minute break. They do that because they believe in what they are doing, but they are already working to maximum capacity and productivity, yet the Government still demand more to earn a pay rise that they have, in reality, already earned several times over. If hon. Members visit any school, where cuts still bite despite Government promises of more cash, they will find headteachers worried that any pay rise granted by the Government will have to be found from existing school budgets—the usual Conservative tactic of passing the responsibility on to someone else.

The hon. Member for Glasgow South West and my hon. Friend the Member for Easington referred to the study by the Centre for Labour and Social Studies on the terms of civil service pay rises. It is the same tactic. We have heard that the pay rise would have to come out of resource departmental expenditure limits for current spending; yet, as we have also heard, Departments as a whole will continue to suffer real-terms cuts to their RDELs up to 2020 and, of the principal Departments covered, only the Ministry of Defence will see an increase in this area of its budget. They made that point clearly, and it calls into question whether the Departments will be able to award pay rises of more than 1%; in fact, they might not even be able to raise that 1%.

Our police and prison service staff were offered a 1% increase and a 1% bonus, which will leave them with, yet again, a below-inflation increase. The chairman of the Police Federation said that staff had been left “angry and deflated” and had experienced a 15% decrease in real spending terms compared to seven years ago. Prisoner numbers are up and are increasing by an average of 3.5% per year, while the number of frontline prison officers, who have been offered a below-inflation 1.7% increase, has remained static.

The pay cap may have been verbally ended, but there is no evidence of its ending in the real world. Take-home pay, in real terms, has not increased. The quite shocking reality is that less than 4% of public sector workers will benefit from the Government’s decisions last September, and no further spending or new money has been made available in the autumn or spring Budgets. What makes one part of the public sector more worthy of being paid fairly than another? Even if the pay cap was genuinely lifted, it would not make up for the loss of thousands of pounds in the past—and indeed in the future, as a knock-on of the pay freeze now. One advantage of the pay cap is that, by keeping wages low, it makes it easier for parts of the public sector to be privatised, and for the privateers to make bigger profits off the back of low-paid but hard-working employees.

I will finish on a point also made by the hon. Member for Glasgow South West, first about pay in the private sector. For many positions in the private sector, public sector roles and pay increases are used as a comparator. Squashing public sector workers’ pay keeps some private sector pay deals flat as well. By crushing the pay of several million public sector workers, billions of pounds of spending power is taken from the private sector, as the hon. Gentleman said. I imagine that very few civil servants, school dinner ladies or police officers salt away their money in offshore tax havens. They spend it here in the UK in the private sector, which then pays the taxes to support public services. The pay freeze is therefore not just unfair—it is bad economics.

For the record, I will wind up by suggesting that the next Labour Government will lift the public sector pay cap for all public sector workers. We demand nothing less from this Government. In “Funding Britain’s Future”, Labour set aside a costed £4 billion to ensure that every public sector worker will get an above-inflation pay rise. The pay review bodies have been operating under the constraint of a Tory 1% cap for eight years. The Government must now lift the pay cap across the whole public sector, rather than playing one group of workers off against another.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Oliver Dowden)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) on securing the debate. I know that, in his role as chair of the PCS union parliamentary group, he takes a keen interest in matters relating to the civil service—as do I, as a responsible Minister.

This has been a valuable debate, with intelligent contributions from most—not all—hon. Members. I think I will be able to address most of those points in my speech, so if hon. Members will forgive me, I will not go into detail at the beginning. However, I shall try to cover any remaining points at the end of my remarks, because I am conscious of how much time we have left.

The starting point has to be the role of civil servants. I know from my experience—both recently as a Cabinet Office Minister and in the five years I spent in Downing Street as an adviser—the standard of our civil service. I have worked with some of the most genuinely committed, talented and hard-working public servants in our country, and I pay tribute to every one of them. At a time when our country faces many challenges, not least how we deliver Brexit, we can rely on our civil servants to help us. I see that every day in my role as a Minister, whether in the groundbreaking work of the Government Digital Service or the critical work of our civil contingencies team. Day in, day out, I see the tremendous quality of the work that they deliver.

The starting point for me and the Government is that all civil servants deserve to be rewarded for the work that they do, so that we can attract the brightest and the best. At the same time, that has to be balanced against the wider constraints faced by our public finances. I will set out some context. The shadow Minister spoke about who caused this situation, so let us remember. When we came into government in 2010, the UK had the largest deficit in its peacetime history. We were borrowing £1 for every £4 or £5 that we spent. Who caused that? It is quite clear: the last Labour Government. We had to deal with that legacy.

In that context, I make no bones about the fact that we had to take some very difficult decisions. As has been said by many hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight), one of those difficult decisions, given the proportion of public expenditure accounted for by public sector pay—about a quarter—was that public sector pay had to be restrained, which is why we introduced a pay freeze for the first two years of the Parliament, followed by the 1% pay cap.

[Christian Matheson]

I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way; I will only intervene once. If what he says is the case, can he explain how the last Labour Government were responsible for the crash of the sub-prime mortgage market in the United States, which caused the crash here?

[Oliver Dowden]

The problem was that the last Labour Government did not fix the roof while the sun was shining. We entered this situation as the least well prepared of any G7 country, so that when we faced those challenges, instead of having a robust fiscal situation, we were already borrowing.

Oral Answers to Questions

Christian Matheson Excerpts

Wednesday 16th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Oliver Dowden]

I know that the right hon. Gentleman is very passionate about this issue. I can reassure him, rightly again, that we remain absolutely committed to getting the new hospital built as quickly as possible, and we are supporting the trust to achieve that while ensuring that taxpayers’ money is spent appropriately.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

Although we warmly welcome moves to open up Government contracts to SMEs, the fact is that they are still being crowded out by big suppliers that regularly fail to deliver, including G4S with its youth custody provision; Capita with its failing Army recruitment contract, among many others; and, of course, Carillion. Will the Government introduce a new requirement that firms cannot bid for new Government contracts while they are still failing to meet quality standards on their existing public sector jobs?

[Oliver Dowden]

Individual contracting Departments clearly keep the performance of all contractors under review. The hon. Gentleman says that we should ensure that small businesses can bid for Government contracts. I announced a range of measures over Easter precisely to deal with that issue. Indeed, we have introduced a requirement for all subcontracting opportunities by principal contractors to be advertised on the Contracts Finder website, which gives SMEs a great chance to bid for work.

Capita

Christian Matheson Excerpts

Tuesday 24th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Oliver Dowden]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He is absolutely right that what we discovered yesterday was that the rights issue is proceeding exactly as planned. In terms of the overall market, I have tried to be clear all along that suppliers should expect a decent rate of return—not an excessive rate of return, but one that allows them to run a profitable business, while ensuring that there are savings for the taxpayer. That is why we use private companies. It is not because of ideology; it is because they deliver savings to the taxpayer, which means more money to be spent on health, education and other public services.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

May I thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting the urgent question and congratulate the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable) on securing it?

Capita is one of the strategic suppliers to the Government, providing services of particular strategic importance, yet, as we heard from its boss today, it had no strategy aside from mucking up the management of the dental register, leaving hundreds of dentists to stand idle; failing to maintain the primary care support service in England, which supervises GP and patient records; and failing on the Army recruitment contract, among many other failings. Members have been highlighting those and other failures to the Government over a period of years and will not be surprised at the latest news. I echo the call from the right hon. Member for Twickenham for the Minister to outline what contingency plans he has put in place to deal with a possible default on any one of those contracts.

The Government claim to be monitoring the situation and have a Crown representative in place, but do they even know what they are monitoring if they are not sure about the number of contracts Capita runs? I and other Members have asked for a list of Government contracts undertaken by Capita and have not been provided with one. Do the Government know how many contracts Capita undertakes across central Government and, indeed, across local government? Will they publish a list of all those contracts?

Will the Minister confirm what improvement plans have been agreed with Capita since its string of profit warnings or yesterday’s refinancing? What quality thresholds will be built into Government contracts to ensure that Capita and other privateers reach an acceptable standard of service delivery, particularly in view of their precarious financial situation?

This latest episode in the saga of outsourcing scandals again shows the public that the Government’s commitment to this practice is nothing more than ideological. Despite the danger to public services, along with the treats to Capita’s staff and subcontractors, the Government will not shift from their view that these giant multinational firms should make huge profits from the public purse, until the point when they fold, taking our public services with them. The Government act as though these firms should be allowed to privatise the profit of the public sector, while nationalising the risk to the British public. We need a change in direction now. Will the Minister use this latest episode involving Capita to finally introduce a presumption in favour of in-house provision of public services?

[Oliver Dowden]

I have a great deal of respect for the hon. Gentleman, and he could have done a little better than some of the overblown rhetoric in his contribution. Yesterday’s announcement was entirely in line with market expectations.

The hon. Gentleman asks what is being done in relation to strategy. The strategy has been set out clearly by the new chief executive. It includes a revised divisional structure and executive team to better manage and enhance services and client value, as well as a rights issue, which, as I said, has proceeded as planned and will materially improve the company’s financial stability, thereby reducing its debt, enabling it to invest in core services, allowing it to reduce the pensions deficit, which it has done by £21 million—I hope all Members will welcome that fact—and allowing it to reduce its cost base.

The hon. Gentleman asks what contingency planning the Government are doing. As I have said, we undertake appropriate contingency planning in respect of all our strategic suppliers. I take a close personal interest in that as a Minister, and I know that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office takes a similarly close interest in it.

The hon. Gentleman asks about contracts that have been awarded to Capita, so let me give him the numbers. Of the current major central Government contracts that have been awarded to Capita, nine were awarded under Labour, which is 20%, 24 were awarded under the coalition, which is about 53%, and 12 were awarded under the current Conservative Government, which is about 27%. This is not a party issue; all three formations of government have decided to use outsourcing companies.

To conclude, I had thought that the hon. Gentleman would agree with the words of a previous Labour leader and somebody who many regarded as being, at least in some senses, a successful leader. Gordon Brown, hardly a rabid right-winger, said:

“It simply would not have been possible to build or refurbish such a number of schools and hospitals without using the PFI model.”—[Official Report, 14 November 2007; Vol. 467, c. 665.]

That was a sensible Labour Government who were committed to delivering public services. We do not see such sense from the current Labour party, I am afraid.

Salisbury Incident

Christian Matheson Excerpts

Wednesday 14th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We look at all the tools available across the board, but we operate within the rule of law, and there are certain criteria that need to be met if sanctions are to be applied.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement and I look forward to her aggressively chasing down that dirty Russian money. There have now been 15 suspicious deaths, and I should like to ask about the prevalence of these deaths in the UK. Are there more in the UK than in similar western countries? If so, why? Is it because we have more Russians here, or because Russia is deliberately targeting the United Kingdom?

[The Prime Minister]

I would just caution the hon. Gentleman when he describes all those deaths as suspicious. I believe that one of the families involved have made it very clear that they do not consider there to have been any suspicion around the death of their loved one. If the police believe that it is right to reopen cases, they will do so. It is up to them to make that operational decision.

UK/EU Future Economic Partnership

Christian Matheson Excerpts

Monday 5th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We are, of course, clear that we will ensure that there is no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, but we should approach it by saying that this is something for us to discuss with the European Commission and the Irish Government, because it is in all our interests to ensure there is no hard border. It is also in the interests of the Irish Government to ensure there is no border down the Irish sea, given the extent of trade between the rest of the United Kingdom and Ireland. It is for all of us to work together on this.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

I have listened to the answers today, and I respectfully suggest to the Prime Minister that the policy of vague sloganising and keeping her fingers crossed that everything will be all right is simply insufficient. Will she confirm that no deal we get from the proposed solutions she has identified will be more advantageous, financially or economically, than our current position?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman talks about vagueness and lack of clarity. Last year, we published 14 separate papers setting out the UK Government’s proposals on a number of aspects of our future relationship and on our withdrawal from the European Union. We have been making the running in setting out our proposals —through the Lancaster House speech, through the article 50 letter, through those papers published in the summer and through the Florence speech, the Munich speech, and now the Mansion House speech. We wait to hear the response from the European Union, but I am optimistic that we are going to get a deal that works for the UK. I am optimistic about this country because of the actions being taken by this Government.

Oral Answers to Questions

Christian Matheson Excerpts

Wednesday 21st February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chloe Smith]

I will look closely at the results of the pilots to evaluate whether it is possible to go further with them. My priority is to do what we can to stamp out electoral fraud. Fraud is not a victimless crime; to have your vote abused is to have it stolen, and that is what I am looking at.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

In the context of these trials forcing people to show ID to vote, in the context of individual electoral registration resulting in 2 million people falling off the electoral register, and now it seems in the context of proposals to make postal votes harder to obtain, why is it that every change the Government bring in makes it harder for people to vote? Why are they scared of people voting?

[Chloe Smith]

The hon. Gentleman is blowing this out of all proportion. Let us not forget that we already use ID to register to vote. What we are talking about here is proving that the person who is voting is the person who registered. Let me return to an earlier answer and say that individual electoral registration has increased the accuracy and completeness of the register. I think that the hon. Gentleman is misunderstanding his own point.

Oral Answers to Questions

Christian Matheson Excerpts

Wednesday 31st January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

13. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Transport on improving cross-border transport links between Wales and England.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

14. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Transport on improving cross-border transport links between Wales and England.

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Alun Cairns)]

I hold regular discussions with Cabinet colleagues and the Welsh Government on modernising cross-border transport connectivity. With 50% of the Welsh population living within 25 miles of the border, improving connectivity is central to delivering economic growth on both sides.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alun Cairns]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and to the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian C. Lucas), who has highlighted the importance of the Wrexham to Bidston line. It forms part of our cross-border growth strategy and is reflected in the UK’s industrial strategy. I spoke with the Welsh Government’s Transport Minister on Monday to discuss the project and we will be updating the hon. Gentlemen and the House in due course.

[Christian Matheson]

The industrial areas around my constituency, which include Airbus in Broughton and Deeside Industrial Park, absolutely depend on the M56 running smoothly. Has the Secretary of State had any conversations with Highways England, or his counterparts in the Transport Department, about when we shall get that motorway unclogged and running smoothly?

[Alun Cairns]

Again, the hon. Gentleman highlights the importance of cross-border connectivity. I would point him to the second road investment strategy for England, which will provide an opportunity to highlight the priority. A million people a week cross that border between north Wales and the north-west of England; 2,000 go to Airbus alone.

Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee

Christian Matheson Excerpts

Thursday 25th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

It is the role of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee to oversee the UK’s changing constitution and the efficacy of the civil service and the machinery of government. Within that, PACAC covers matters of ethics and propriety in Whitehall, overseeing the work of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the ministerial code, the special advisers code, the civil service code and the work of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, which oversees the rules governing departing Ministers and Crown servants when they take up outside appointments.

PACAC has defined its overriding purpose as being

“to conduct robust and effective scrutiny in order to help create conditions where the public can have justified confidence in public services/government.”

In that context, just before the election, in April 2017, PACAC published a new report on ACOBA, entitled “Managing Ministers’ and officials’ conflicts of interest: time for clearer values, principles and action”. That followed a report published in 2012 by our predecessor Committee, which recommended replacing the existing business appointment rules with a statutory system. The main recommendations of that report, and of our more recent 2017 report, have been flatly rejected by the Government. I am afraid that many people believe that to be hopelessly complacent. PACAC is therefore announcing in its supplementary report, published today, that we intend to hold a further inquiry into these matters.

The way we manage conflicts of interest arising where former Ministers and Crown servants leave the Government to take up jobs elsewhere really matters. There is a constant stream of embarrassing stories in the media about the so-called revolving door between employment in the public and private sectors, suggesting that people misuse the advantage of a job in Government to get lucrative jobs outside. Although many of these stories may be unfair, the situation is deeply corrosive of public trust in our system of democracy and Government because the present system of oversight fails to provide adequate assurance.

For example—I will name only one Department as an example, but this includes every Department—a constant flow of Ministry of Defence civil servants, and of senior officers from the armed forces, finish up working in the defence industry. A similar situation occurs in other Departments. No one should assume that there is automatically anything wrong with that, but there needs to be an adequate system of assurance that there is, indeed, nothing wrong, and that we are not fostering an over-permissive attitude. The expectation of many people—even of some Ministers—is that this is the new normal and that everybody does it.

We acknowledge, and I pay tribute to, the hard work of the ACOBA board—the chair and the secretariat—but PACAC’s 2012 and 2017 reports can be described only as excoriating. In 2017, PACAC concluded:

“ACoBA, in its current form is a toothless regulator which has failed to change the environment around business appointments.”

That is because ACOBA lacks power and resources, and its remit is much too limited. It is not a regulator—it is merely advisory, with no sanctions for non-compliance—and there are regular instances of the business appointment rules being ignored.

Furthermore, serious gaps exist in ACOBA’s monitoring process, so while we know about some high-profile cases, we have little idea about the scale of non-compliance. That has got worse since the Government removed ACOBA’s responsibility to monitor and report applications from Crown servants below SCS3 in 2010. Departments are meant to post half-yearly data on their websites to show when advice has been given to applicants at SCS2 and 3 levels, but this data has become patchy. We just do not know how many civil servants below SCS3 level who have performed important roles in respect of policy formation and commercial relationships end up in a position to draw on inside information or their Government contacts after they leave the civil service.

In the period between PACAC’s two reports, the challenge has escalated, with increased numbers of public servants and Ministers moving between the public and private sectors. There have also been a number of high-profile cases, leading to declining public trust in a system that was designed to promote public confidence. A personal observation is that the magazine Private Eye, from which we took evidence, frequently appears to do a better job of policing the business appointment rules than does the advisory committee itself.

It is essential that steps are taken to ensure that the ACOBA system is swiftly improved. In PACAC’s more recent report, we set out a number of new recommendations in relation to how that could be done without resort to statute, although we recommend that a cost-benefit analysis of statutory regulation should be conducted. The Government have rejected statutory regulation on the basis that it would be too costly, but they refuse to do the cost-benefit analysis.

PACAC recommended that the Government provide ACOBA with the powers and resources necessary to actively monitor and enforce compliance with the rules. There should also be a substantial increase in transparency regarding ACOBA’s decisions, and that should be done by Department. Applications should be published on receipt and not just when they are approved. That might reduce a lot of ACOBA’s unnecessary workload.

Most importantly, the business appointment rules should be fundamentally changed. A system to manage conflicts of interest needs to be more than just a code of rules and declarations. A principles-based system, if it is effectively taught by leaders and learned by everyone so that it is intrinsic to public service, would create a new and different expectation that individuals will act with integrity, encouraging people to regulate their own behaviour and attitudes according to those principles.

Our report recommends a substantial change of emphasis in the ministerial code and the civil service code to highlight the values and principles that should guide attitude and behaviour. We need to instil an expectation of integrity in individuals’ decisions. That, combined with independent checks, could effectively foster a substantial improvement in attitudes and behaviours. Evasively, the Government responded that the essence of those principles and values is already embedded in the code, but they are not explicit enough. We need a change of heart, and we need a stronger system—otherwise public confidence will continue to be eroded.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman and his Committee for their powerful report and for the statement he has just made. The Opposition are committed to bringing this issue to the top of the political agenda and to seeking reform, as not a week seems to go by without the exposure of some conflict of interest in the heart of Government. Bearing in mind his statement and his report, does the Chair of the Select Committee agree that the report raises serious questions of governance and confirms that this is a Government of the few, by the few and for the few?

[Mr Jenkin]

I will leave aside the soundbite that came at the end of the hon. Gentleman’s question, but the substance of his remarks is correct. The system is inadequate and needs to be strengthened and reformed, and I am delighted that Her Majesty’s official Opposition are taking an interest in the matter.