Oral Answers to Questions

Christian Matheson Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Alun Cairns]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which we discussed at the Welsh Affairs Committee on Monday. I pay tribute to him for his persistence on this matter. He rightly points out that the Irish Government have opened an office in Cardiff, and we would encourage other Governments to do that. I am happy to meet and to work with him to see which nations we should target to attract them to Wales and to Cardiff.

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

5. What recent discussions he has had with the Welsh Government on the resilience of infrastructure in Wales.

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

I have regular discussions with the Welsh Government’s Minister for Economy and Transport on a range of matters, including infrastructure in Wales. We are committed to creating a broad-based resilient economy through our own modern industrial strategy and the Welsh Government’s economic action plan.

[Christian Matheson]

The resilience of the major road network in north-east Wales is entirely dependent on the M56, just across the border in my constituency, which is now beyond capacity. Will the Secretary of State speak to Department for Transport Ministers to ensure that we get the upgrades we need in order to benefit north-east Wales as well?

[Alun Cairns]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, particularly when responsibilities are split between the Welsh Government and the UK Government. In seeking to address these sorts of issues, and cross-border infrastructure projects in particular, the strategic roads in Britain group has been established—of which the Welsh Government and the UK Government are part—to prioritise how we can best resolve these issues.

European Council

Christian Matheson Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave earlier to a similar question.

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

Can the Prime Minister explain the mechanism by which a meaningful vote suddenly becomes a meaningless vote? Ignoring indicative votes on motions to take note in this House is one thing, but when she ignores a meaningful vote, it shows a level of bad faith that is frankly matched only by her grotesque speech last week in Downing Street.

[The Prime Minister]

The House was very clear after the first meaningful vote that it wanted to see change in a certain area, and the one thing the House positively voted for was to leave with a deal, with some changes to the withdrawal agreement. We negotiated changes to the withdrawal agreement—we negotiated legally binding changes to the withdrawal agreement. The House has not accepted those changes. I continue to talk to colleagues, because I continue to believe that it is better for this country to leave the European Union with a good deal.

Overseas Electors Bill

Christian Matheson Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 22nd March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

That is perfectly fitting and has been done with characteristic grace by the hon. Gentleman. I hope he feels that he has achieved his objective and secured in the circumstances a consolation prize, albeit a modest one.

[Christian Matheson]

I rise to address the House for the first time in today’s sitting. May I start by paying tribute to my good friend the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies)? He has sat patiently through this and many other sittings, and I know how very keen he is to see this Bill progress on to the statute book. If it does not do so, that will not be because of any lack of effort on his part. I pay tribute to him for the decent diligence that he has put into the Bill. The tribute I pay him is heartfelt and genuine, and I wish him well.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chloe Smith)]

May I thank the hon. Gentleman as well for the hours he has put into this Bill in Committee, and will he allow me to join him in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) and all those who have campaigned for this change with passion and dignity?

May I take a moment to confirm that the Government remain committed to scrapping the time cap? This remains a manifesto commitment for the Government to fulfil, and we will return to update the House in due course on our steps to do so.

[Christian Matheson]

I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. We have concerns about certain areas in the Bill. When the legislation is brought back, in whatever form it comes back, we will continue to debate those concerns and scrutinise the Bill, recognising that the Government remain committed to bringing in this change.

Listening this morning—and this afternoon—to the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), I was reminded that we should always take care about everything we say in Committee, because somebody somewhere will actually read the speeches that we make. I am rather gladdened and encouraged that a hon. Member of such diligence and such attention to detail as the hon. Gentleman has read much of what I said in Committee—and, indeed, taken it on, because, as he said to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), a lot of the new clauses he has tabled were ones that were first floated by me and my hon. Friends in Committee.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Christian Matheson]

I would always give way to my good friend the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire.

[Glyn Davies]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman—my friend—for taking an intervention, and I think he knows what I want to do. First, I congratulate him, and I do thank him for the way in which he helped us in Committee. I did not always agree with him when we had a dispute, but he was always incredibly polite and well argued, and all the points he made were very well made.

I would like to take this chance to put on the record the huge number of people who have helped me in this process. I will name only one specifically, because I would take up too much time if I named them all. I do think that Harry Shindler deserves a mention in the House. He is 98 years old, and he came over here from Italy to discuss this Bill with me in person on two occasions during this process. The one thing he wants to do is to vote in a British election: it is the one thing left in his life that he wants. I have one disappointment in that it looks at the moment as though this Bill might not reach a conclusion today, but the real disappointment I have is that Harry Shindler will be disappointed, and I think that is a great shame.

[Christian Matheson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I have not met Mr Shindler, but it is my understanding that he fought in the second world war. May I put it bluntly? We live in freedom today because of people like Mr Shindler and many hundreds of thousands like him who risked their lives, and we will never tire of making that case.

The hon. Member for Shipley made an extensive and detailed opening speech on his new clauses. As I say, many of them were very similar to, if not the same as, ones that I and my hon. Friends moved in Committee. He gave very detailed descriptions, so I do not want to go over them again in the time left available to us.

New clause 1 would mean that UK citizens who are considering moving abroad or in the process of doing so will be given a prompt by the electoral registration officer, if that officer receives information that leads them to believe that a registered elector is moving, to remind them to re-register. The hon. Member for Shipley is right: this is about stopping a huge rush of people registering in a short period before an election, so as to even out the burden on the electoral registration officer. It would reduce the workload of EROs, who would otherwise have to send out reminders to encourage new voters to register.

[Gareth Snell]

When the hon. Member for Shipley spoke to new clause 1, I mentioned the difference between people who have moved and those who are going to move. May I tease out a suggestion from my hon. Friend on how that issue could be overcome? An electoral registration officer will not know whether somebody has moved unless they have been told, yet under the new clause they would be compelled somehow to provide people with information on how to register as an overseas elector.

[Christian Matheson]

My hon. Friend is right, and given that the new clause seeks to reduce the burden on electoral registration officers, we would not want as an unintended consequence to increase that burden on officers, who would have to find voters who formerly lived in their constituency but who now live abroad. I imagine that the ERO would prompt people who are about to move abroad to register.

The new clause seeks to strengthen our democratic culture by encouraging voter registration. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) and my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) said earlier, the Government are currently narrowing that group by making it harder for people to register and vote in certain pilot areas where ID requirements have been introduced. I call on the Government to think again about whether they are genuinely concerned with widening voter participation and registration, or whether they are considering such matters only for overseas voters.

Under new clause 1, EROs must ensure that the voting register is as accurate and complete as possible. Each year they conduct an annual canvass of households, issuing and chasing inquiry forms. Household inquiry forms are sent to every household to confirm the details of those living at the property. Although those forms do not directly generate new registrations, they are critical to producing information about the country. Under the new clause, any information generated from those forms that suggests that a British person is moving or has moved abroad, should lead to a notification from the ERO to prompt that person to put themselves on the overseas voters register.

Voter awareness is crucial to this legislation. The hon. Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien) spoke about the role that British diplomatic posts could play in registering UK citizens abroad, and letting them know about the importance of voting. Once overseas voters are made aware of their eligibility, they are more likely to vote. The earlier that someone registers within the current 15-year time limit, the easier it is to keep them registered after that time limit, and we will therefore remove the possibility of a rush to register immediately before an election, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Shipley.

[Gareth Snell]

My hon. Friend is gracious with his time. Does he share my concern that the missed opportunity with new clause 1 is that there is no provision to help those already overseas who may suddenly gain the right to vote? Nothing in the new clause seeks to provide local authorities with the ability or resources to do that, yet there could be thousands of people for whom that situation is their everyday existence.

[Christian Matheson]

My hon. Friend’s analysis is almost certainly correct. I am a little concerned because the proposal was originally mine, so I cannot exactly blame the hon. Member for Shipley, but that is what scrutiny in this place is for. I will take my hon. Friend’s guidance and I am grateful for his insight into the deficiencies of new clause 1.

Moving, if I may, to new clause 3—

Oral Answers to Questions

Christian Matheson Excerpts

Wednesday 20th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct—no, there is not. He speaks of the Gavi replenishment, which is again important this year. That refers to global vaccination, which we will of course maintain our support for and position on. I hope that the whole House unites in combating the anti-vaccination campaigns that are taking place in too many parts of the world. As someone who had the benefit of my father’s own polio vaccinations to me as a child, vaccination is very personal to me. We all need to keep it up—and thanks, Dad.

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

3. If she will make reducing global warming a strategic priority of her Department.

[Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

4. If she will make reducing global warming a strategic priority of her Department.

[The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Harriett Baldwin)]

Climate change is a major threat to achieving the sustainable development goals, and tackling it is a strategic priority for the Government and for my Department. The Government are delivering £5.8 billion in international climate finance to help developing countries to reduce emissions and to manage the impact of climate change.

[Christian Matheson]

Last Friday, thousands of children took to the streets, including in my own constituency, because they know that we have only 12 years left to make a difference on climate change. So why is the Department still spending money through its prosperity fund on expanding the oil and gas sectors in several countries where that fund is active?

[Harriett Baldwin]

I welcome the opportunity that the interest young people are showing in climate change gives us to highlight the important work that we are doing. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we do not provide any bilateral assistance for coal-fired power generation, and that CDC, our private sector investment arm, has made no new net investments in coal-fired power since 2012.

Civil Service Compensation Scheme

Christian Matheson Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2019 Westminster Hall

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

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Buck. I do not intend to detain the Chamber for too long; I am sure Members are more interested in hearing what the Minister has to say.

I pay tribute to my good friend, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens). One reason why I do not need to speak for too long is that he gave such a clear exposition of the problems faced by workers in the civil service, and members of the PCS and other trade unions, because of the changes to the civil service compensation scheme. The matter has been particularly prominent recently in the area that he represents because of the changes to benefits offices and jobcentres, as a result of which low-paid workers are being offered jobs that may be many miles away from their settled workplace. They cannot take those jobs, and the only option available to them is to take a pay-off under the civil service compensation scheme, which is now being cut.

I do not want to go into too much of the excellent detail that the hon. Member for Glasgow South West set out, but I will make two points. The first point was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney). If this change were being made on its own, it would be a matter of sadness and there would be some hope that perhaps an agreement could be reached with the trade unions. Unfortunately, however, it appears to be part of a pattern when it comes to how the Government and the senior management of the civil service deal with their members.

In 2010 the Government implemented a two-year pay freeze, which was followed by a six-year pay cap of 1%. During that period, average salary levels in the civil service fell in value, in comparison with inflation, by between 8.8% according to the CPI calculation and 15.2% according to the retail prices index. Average pay in local government, health and education—all areas that we know have suffered from Government cuts and depressions in pay—has seen increases higher than those in the civil service; the Government have capped civil service pay rises at between 1% and 1.5%.

The Government spending review, which we are currently looking at, has set departmental budgets until 2020. The chief executive of the civil service recently told union negotiators that for 2019, funding for pay increases was 1%. He said that Departments could negotiate higher pay increases by sacrificing terms and conditions. An example of this approach arose in the Ministry of Justice last year. The management proposed a pay increase of 11% over five years, in exchange for a longer working week, cuts to overtime and cuts to sick pay. I make those points about civil service pay because my concern is that a pattern is emerging where, to put it bluntly, civil service management—or, dare I say it, Ministers—seem to have an agenda of driving down terms and conditions across the civil service.

[Chris Stephens]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. Does he agree that the changes to civil service pay, civil service pensions and the civil service compensation scheme are a triple whammy for civil servants, many of whom are low paid? Is it not ironic that the directors of all these UK Government Departments have agreed that there should be a 1% pay rise for civil servants, and does that not make a mockery of the 200 different sets of pay negotiations in the civil service?

[Christian Matheson]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. He mentioned the civil service pension changes, which complement and add to the pattern of behaviour that I am identifying. It gives me great concern that there is an agenda out there of driving down civil service pay. Suffice it to say that the official Opposition hope that an agreement can be reached with the trade unions. I remind the Minister that trade unions represent many tens of thousands of Government employees. They have a legitimate role in representing their members.

We keep being told that we are coming out of the tunnel after 10 years of depression, that austerity is over, that the Government are being extremely successful in their management of the economy and that sunlight is beaming down through the dark clouds. If that is the case, now is the time to start treating the Government’s own employees more fairly and, in the context of this particular debate, acceding to the requests of the trade unions that represent the Government’s own employees. That means sorting out this dispute—it is, dare I say it, a needless dispute—on the civil service compensation scheme and giving those civil servants a decent pay rise. That decent pay rise will be a percentage of a much smaller amount than it would have been, because their pay has been depressed for so long, but I urge the Minister in the meeting on 25 March to take this matter seriously, to take his employees the civil servants seriously and to give them a fair settlement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Oliver Dowden]

I should say from the outset that no decision has been taken or agreed by permanent secretaries. There is a very clear process for this, which is that for delegated pay, which is that for civil servants below senior civil service level, the framework is set by the Cabinet Office in conjunction with the Treasury and then it is up to each individual Department to make individual decisions.

On the point about co-ordination, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and I want to ensure that we have a proper process of engagement with the principal trade unions as we set the delegated framework, but it is important to say that that is not a pay negotiation. We need to understand their position, but the individual pay negotiation must be done by each individual Department. I think having each Department make its individual determination is the right approach, but I am keen to ensure that we engage with the trade unions and others as we consider the overall approach to delegated pay. As I understand it, correspondence is ongoing with the trade unions on the best way of doing that.

Beyond the delegated framework, there is also potential for further efficiency savings to allow for higher pay rises. I have signed them off as a responsible Minister; for example, the Foreign Office recently agreed a two-year pay deal funded by efficiencies, allowing for a 6.4% average uplift for non-SCS staff. It is possible, through smarter ways of working, to fund higher pay awards. I hope that gives hon. Members an overall sense of the approach the Government take to pay.

[Christian Matheson]

Can the Minister describe some of the smarter ways of working that helped to encourage the signing off of that particular pay rise?

[Ms Karen Buck (in the Chair)]

Order. May I encourage the Minister not to stray too far from the subject matter of the debate in responding to that intervention?

Interserve

Christian Matheson Excerpts

Monday 18th March 2019 Commons Chamber

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

(Urgent Question): To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on the major Government supplier Interserve entering administration.

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

I have been asked to respond on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

As I have said repeatedly to the House, the Government are not responsible for decisions taken by companies in the private sector. What the Government are responsible for is the continued delivery of public services, and I assure the House that has happened in this case. Schools continue to be cleaned, roads continue to be repaired and improved, and services in Government buildings continue to run as normal.

I reassure hon. Members that nothing in Interserve’s refinancing will affect the delivery of public services. No staff have lost jobs and no pensions have been affected. The company has executed a contingency plan that it had prudently developed in case shareholders rejected the proposed refinancing deal. This was a pre-agreed transaction, known as a “pre-pack” administration. Hundreds of pre-pack administrations are performed every year, including by well-known companies. It is a well-established and normal process, typically used when a shareholder is blocking a business’s restructuring.

To be clear, the operating companies responsible for the delivery of all Interserve’s services, public and private, have remained wholly unaffected. As a result of shareholders failing to reach agreement on the proposed refinancing, the parent company—Interserve plc—was put into administration. The operating companies, the companies that actually deliver the services, were then almost immediately purchased by a new company, Interserve Group Ltd.

This new company has been considerably strengthened. It now has a much stronger balance sheet, £110 million of additional cash and a greatly reduced debt burden. It is in taxpayers’ interest to have a well-financed and stable group of suppliers, so this has been a positive outcome for the company’s customers, supply chain and employees.

I am clear on the benefits of outsourcing. Working with the private sector allows us to access expertise and economies of scale that can help us to deliver more innovative public services at better value for the taxpayer. As I have said before, this Government are driven by what works, not by political dogma, and the evidence is clear. Research shows that outsourcing delivers savings of between 20% and 30% compared with bringing services in-house.

However, we recognise there is more we can do to improve how we outsource. We have learned from the collapse of Carillion, and we are implementing changes to our procurement and commercial processes, as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and I have set out in several speeches. For example, we have published “The Outsourcing Playbook”, which was developed with industry and outlines a range of measures designed to ensure that outsourcing projects succeed.

We are now asking suppliers of critical contracts to provide detailed information to help to mitigate any risk to service delivery in the rare event of corporate failure. These “living wills” are now being piloted by five strategic suppliers, including Interserve. We are taking action on prompt payment, including excluding suppliers from Government procurement if they cannot demonstrate prompt payment to their supply chain. We are also taking steps on embedding social value in Government procurement, and I launched the consultation last week.

These sensible and prudent steps will help us to ensure that we get procurement right first time, that we identify and remedy financial risks to Government services and that we manage taxpayers’ money in a way that achieves the best value for money. Indeed, the fact we had ongoing engagement with Interserve throughout this process, through our Crown representatives and the Government commercial function, demonstrates the strength of the Government’s approach to managing our strategic suppliers.

Once again, although the corporate structure of Interserve changed on Friday, I reassure all hon. Members that public service delivery remains wholly unchanged. No jobs have been lost, no pensions have been affected and no services have been disrupted.

[Christian Matheson]

Mr Deputy Speaker, would you pass on my thanks to Mr Speaker for granting this urgent question?

The slow-motion car crash that is the Interserve crisis seems finally to have come to a dreadful conclusion. Let us first remember the company’s 45,000 employees and hundreds of small subcontractors living with uncertainty today. In June 2018 the Cabinet Office gave Interserve a red rating, which indicates:

“Significant material concerns for Cabinet Office Commercial Relationships Board to consider High Risk designation.”

That followed profit warnings issued over the previous year. Despite this, Interserve continued to receive public sector contracts worth hundreds of millions of pounds, including from central Government—a situation remarkably similar to the problems with Carillion just over a year ago. According to the GMB union, the largest of those contracts is worth £66.7 million and was awarded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in August.

What checks did the Government make to ensure the contracts they were signing were being given to a company capable of delivering them? Can the Minister also confirm reports that his Department drew up secret plans to nationalise some of these contracts—in other words, to take them back in-house—should Interserve fail? Incidentally, we would support such plans in principle. If such plans were drawn up, why did contracts continue to be awarded to a company that Ministers knew was struggling and was possibly unable to fulfil them?

Will Ministers now activate those plans? If not, what steps will the Government take to ensure continuity of services, especially if parts of Interserve’s business are sold off? Among many other things, Interserve builds motorway junctions, provides maintenance on military bases and runs probation services—badly in the last case, even by the Government’s own admission.

Does the Minister agree this company has simply been hoovering up contracts willy-nilly, regardless of expertise and clearly without regard to the financial implications of such a strategy? Does he agree that Ministers have allowed this to happen based on a false economy of impossible contract prices that, as in the case of Carillion, brought down the whole company and much more around it? Does the Minister accept that the Government’s policy of focusing on just a few major contractors owned by big financial institutions has not only squeezed smaller UK businesses from the scene, but driven the risk to an unacceptable level, at great cost to the taxpayer? The Conservatives’ claim that outsourcing provides value for money has again been shown up for the ideological baloney that it really is. Finally, will the Minister confirm that the Government are looking at all major suppliers to ensure that their finances and ability to deliver contracts are watertight? After Carillion, and now Interserve, the public are entitled to ask who is next.

[Oliver Dowden]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. As he knows, I have great respect for him, but he rather overstates the case in respect of Interserve. Let me go through some of the points he raised. First, he asked whether checks were performed on the company before contracts were awarded. Yes, of course those checks were performed.

Rather than trading rhetoric around, let us look at the facts. Interserve issued a profit warning in September 2017, after which no major central Government contracts were awarded to Interserve until it completed its refinancing in April 2018. Since that refinancing, two such contracts have been awarded: one in August 2018 for facilities management for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in Europe, where Interserve was the incumbent supplier, so it was essentially a continuation of that service; and secondly, a contract with Highways England was awarded in September 2018 for a £12 million bridge over the A63. Of course, contracts are being awarded across the wider public sector but, in respect of the contracts awarded by central Government and for which Ministers are responsible, those are the major contracts that were awarded in the relevant period.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether we will nationalise the company. The point here—indeed, the point about all the contingency—is that there is no need to invoke the contingency. Contingency is used if a company collapses —if it goes into liquidation—whereas in this case the companies that deliver services for the Government are entirely unaffected. All that has changed is the ownership by the parent company. Indeed, what has changed is that the company has got stronger—it has £100 million more on its balance sheets and fewer debts because of the restructuring—so there is absolutely no need to invoke the contingency preparation.

The hon. Gentleman talked about a few major companies winning Government contracts; let me tell him the figures: more than 5,000 companies bid for and win Government contracts. We have set a demanding target of a third of all business going to small and medium-sized enterprises.

If the hon. Gentleman is worried about contracts going to Interserve, perhaps he should speak to a few of his colleagues. For example, a £10 million contract was awarded to Interserve in June 2018—by Labour-run Southwark Council. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could have a word with Labour-run Wales, which awarded a contract to Interserve just in December.

I really have to say to the hon. Gentleman that at this time when employers, suppliers and public service workers are seeking calm heads and reassurance, we are absolutely clear that they are completely reassured. I would have thought the hon. Gentleman would have done better.

Housing Associations and Public Contractors: Freedom of Information

Christian Matheson Excerpts

Wednesday 6th March 2019 Westminster Hall

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

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts, and to follow the birthday boy, the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard)—I wish him the best on his special day, and many more of them to come.

The debate, obtained by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), follows on from his work on his private Member’s Bill, the Freedom of Information (Extension) Bill, as well as from work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner). It also follows the report from the Information Commissioner’s Office, which has been referred to. This is clearly not a case of the Information Commissioner making a power grab, or of mission creep. The report is based on evidence showing where the current situation is not working, or where the ICO does not have sufficient power to challenge bodies that undertake work on behalf of public authorities, such that the balance needs to be redressed. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith for his persistence on the matter, but I cannot help thinking that at some point the change he proposes will become inevitable.

I, too, received a briefing from the National Housing Federation, and I gave it a read. I confess that my response was similar to that of my hon. Friends: “Is that it?” The reasons given for not adopting the proposals seemed pretty thin. I wondered why such bodies might not want the change. Perhaps it is because of concern about a regulatory workload and burden. However, it is clear to me that, where freedom of information operates, there is a possibility of change in the culture of the organisations operating under its auspices. They realise that they can no longer hold on tightly to information or act in a secretive manner, and so they become more open to the people whom they exist to serve. Their manner of doing business, internally and externally, therefore becomes more open, and perhaps they become better and more efficient organisations as a result. That culture change should be embraced and welcomed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith discussed occasions when freedom of information requests were denied, such as requests regarding the number of attacks at HM Prison Birmingham, and the number of prison staff there—figures that G4S declined to provide. G4S also declined to provide information on the number of complaints from the public against court security officers. My hon. Friend discussed television licences and Virgin Care providing NHS services—something that has recently happened in my area, where increasingly community health services are delivered by private sector contractors. That has been a deliberate policy of the Government, and we have a philosophical difference about that privatisation. However, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh East said, the law must be able to keep up with changes in the way society is structured.

I noted something that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge said about public money being used for public services. That is at the core of the issue, and there cannot be any real argument about it. Where public money is being used to provide a public service, there should be no hiding place, and neither should there be any desire to hide from the necessary and, I think, welcome scrutiny that freedom of information provides.

Under the current Conservative Government there has been a clear trend in favour of large outsourcing companies, which tend to operate with little accountability or public responsibility. Carillion, Interserve, Capita and G4S are names that we regularly see. The reach of those companies is huge. I think I am correct in saying that Interserve had construction contracts to build motorway junctions, and it was running the probation service. Those companies’ reach goes right across society. The Opposition believe that the lack of responsibility and openness can amplify the possibility of problems. As the companies in question have less responsibility to act openly, they tend to clam up—for want of a better expression—hunker down and try to conceal any problems. We are clear that public services need to be transparent and accountable to the people who use them, regardless of whether they are delivered by the public sector or by private companies. We were clear about that in 2017, when our manifesto stated:

“We will extend the Freedom of Information Act to private companies that run public services”.

That will also be in our next general election manifesto, whenever it is required. We shall also extend the Freedom of Information Act to cover housing associations and other social landlords, as well as tenant management organisations, and we will consider extending it to cover contractor-held information.

The housing point is important because of the dreadful example discussed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith: the tragedy at Grenfell Tower. We shall never know whether openness might have prevented the tragedy. The public inquiry under way at the moment will consider those issues. We know, however, that residents were battling for several years beforehand to try to find information that was consistently denied to them—I will say no more, because the matter is currently under consideration by the inquiry.

The Freedom of Information Act does not generally apply to information held by contractors about the public service they provide to local and central Government—for example for social care, health, public transport, school inspections and privately run prisons—and that is because of a loophole in the system. Section 3(2) of the Act states that information held “by the public authority” also includes information

“held by another person on behalf of an authority”.

The information that a contractor holds on behalf of a public authority is therefore within the scope of a freedom of information request, even if the authority never physically holds that information as its own hard copy or electronic files. However, that does not include all information that may be held by the contractor in connection with the performance or proposed performance of a contract.

The kind of information that has been withheld from the public includes some examples that have already been mentioned, such as the cost of TV licence prosecutions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith reminded us, not even the BBC is allowed to receive that information, even though it always takes a battering from the general public for prosecutions undertaken by Capita.

The Freedom of Information (Extension) Bill contains provisions to ensure that all information about the provision of public service under contract could be obtained via an FOI request to the relevant authority. It seeks to provide legal certainty on the position of contractors and subcontractors by requiring all contracts between a public authority and a contractor to be deemed to include a provision that all information held by the contractor or sub-contractor in connection with the performance, or proposed performance, of a contract is held on behalf of the public authority and therefore lies within the scope of the Act. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith stated at the time:

“The general public has a right to know as much about Carillion or Serco when they are given public contracts or providing public services as we do about public authorities doing the same work. My Bill would bring freedom of information into line with the way public services are now being delivered in 2018”.

The report by the Information Commissioner’s Office states:

“In the modern age, public services are delivered in many ways by many organisations”—

the point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh East—

“yet not all of these organisations are subject to access to information laws. Maintaining accountable and transparent services is a challenge because the current regime does not always extend beyond public authorities and, when it does, it is complicated. The laws are no longer fit for purpose.”

The ICO recommended that private contractors should be FOI-able where that is in the public interest,

“whether because of the scale, duration or public importance of the contracts”.

The report continues:

“Without information to understand how public services are performing, how levels of service compare and how problems are tackled, the public will be left in the dark about the operation of public services. Access to information legislation is essential to democratic accountability and helps to create what we all want to see—better public services”.

In the case of Carillion, that lack of transparency prevented small businesses from making informed decisions as to whether to enter into contracts with it, at a time when it was financially risky to do so.

A recent TUC report recommended a number of steps to improve transparency in outsourcing. Those included, among other things, the creation of a so-called Domesday Book for all contracts. A new public body would be set up to operate at arm’s length from central Government, and it would have statutory powers to require both commissioners and contractors from across the public sector to supply it with data. It should maintain a Domesday Book for all contracts, including performance on the outsourcing of services. At the moment there is no centralised place to find a list of contracts for a specific company. I tried to find a list of contracts for Capita, but that information seemed to be fractured and diffuse across Government.

Tenants and the public have the right to information about councils under the Freedom of Information Act, but not about housing associations, which provide the same essential housing services and receive significant public investment. In my area almost all public housing is provided by three or four housing associations, and they were stock transfers previously owned by Chester City Council. The previous Labour Government and the Conservative-led coalition proposed that the legislation should cover housing associations, but that has not yet been achieved. Obtaining information from contractors, including on fire safety, can prevent a problem, and my hon. Friend’s Bill seeks to correct that serious omission by making housing associations public authorities for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act.

Public authorities are suffering from the difficulties of austerity and cuts, and they will find it onerous to provide responses to freedom of information requests. However, the 2000 Act does contain provisions to prevent mischievous or repetitive requests from the same residents. Perhaps that has given public contractors a sense that they do not want to take on the same burdens, but if they are happy to take on public contracts they should surely be happy to take on the responsibilities of being a public contractor.

We have seen in the Government’s approach to public contracting what I believe to be a form of reverse redistribution that takes large amounts of public money and puts it into the pockets of big public contractors. From there it goes into the pockets, bank accounts, or indeed—dare I perhaps inject an unwelcome political element into the debate?—the offshore bank accounts, that belong to some of the owners of those public bodies.

Listening to the contributions from my hon. Friends, it seems that when public money is being spent on delivering public services, there can be no reason why the same public scrutiny should not be applied. It is a matter of time. Let us hope that it is only a matter of minutes, while the Minister responds, but if it does take longer to introduce such a measure, that will be achieved when the next Labour Government take office.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

I call the Minister. I hope that she will allow a couple of minutes at the end for the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) to wind up the debate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Christian Matheson Excerpts

Wednesday 6th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Oliver Dowden]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I hope that he will acknowledge the progress that this Government have made in introducing a national living wage for the first time. The effect of that national living wage, which will rise by almost 5% this April, is that an average person working full time on the national living wage will be almost £3,000 a year better off—and that is not counting the massive increase in the personal allowance that also cuts their taxes.

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

Of course, it is not a living wage; it is just a minimum wage re-badged.

The Government have repeatedly insisted that Interserve’s

“current intentions are a matter for the company itself.”

However, it emerged last night that Cabinet Office officials were playing an active role in talks to negotiate a rescue package. It seems that the Government cannot make up their mind whether they have a responsibility to intervene and protect public services and jobs or whether to let the market decide, so which is it?

[Oliver Dowden]

The Government are absolutely clear that their principal task is to ensure the continued delivery of public services, and that is what we have ensured in respect of our strategic suppliers. The hon. Gentleman raises the case of Interserve. I welcome this morning’s announcement, which I am sure he has seen, which demonstrates that it is making good progress towards refinancing, but we are clear that that is a matter between the lenders to that company and the company itself. The Government are not a party to those negotiations.

Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill (Twenty Sixth sitting)

Christian Matheson Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd January 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the Committee do now adjourn.

Another week and another statement by the Prime Minister on Brexit. Following the crushing defeat last week, the highly anticipated statement made by the Prime Minister on Monday revealed that plan B is just sticking to plan A. Disappointingly, the Government are now experts in delaying and running down the clock. Evidently, nothing has changed.

In contrast, we could make some meaningful change by progressing with this Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester highlighted last week, the Minister now has an opportunity to restore some order by presenting the current boundary proposal orders for the House to decide on. I wonder whether the Minister can enlighten us any further.

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

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Ms Dorries. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton makes an interesting point: he says that the Government are now experts in running down the clock. We have long feared that that is the status of this Committee, as well as—obviously—wider events in relation to the Brexit deal or no-deal scenario.

However, my concern this week is about the capacity of Departments to deal with matters such as the one before the Committee. The Minister has told us that we are waiting for the orders to be drafted on the current proposals in relation to the boundary review—those that were published in, I think, September or October, which are based on 600 constituencies—and until they have gone through and been decided on by the House, it would not be appropriate further to consider my hon. Friend’s Bill.

My concern is that Brexit, the preparations for Brexit and, indeed, the preparations for a no-deal Brexit are sucking the life out of Departments. Right across Government, we see Departments in this position. I believe that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has 70 statutory instruments to be considered; the Treasury has 200 to 300. The Minister’s own Department, the Cabinet Office, which I shadow, is starting to see statutory instruments rack up. My concern is that much as the Minister was certain before Christmas that the drafting of the orders was on time, it is no longer on time, because resources are being diverted to other affairs to deal with the possibility of a no-deal Brexit. I press it upon the Minister that the matters before the Committee need to be considered.

We are hearing now that the February recess might be cancelled. That would have one benefit: the Committee would meet for one extra week in February, which I look forward to. I would miss the time to be with my constituents and family in Chester, but the benefit would be that I got to spend the time with hon. Members on the Committee. Can the Minister give an assurance that work is continuing to progress on the orders for the current boundary proposals, so that the House may dispose of them one way or the other, and that the life is not being sucked out of the regular work of the Department as it appears to be being sucked out of every other Department of State by Brexit?

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I very much echo what was said by the hon. Member for City of Chester. This is a great day to be one of those folk who get obsessed about the procedures of the House, because we have a debate this afternoon on private Members’ Bills. Hon. Members will have seen, on page 6 of the Order Paper, the motion standing in the name of the Leader of the House to provide extra days for consideration of private Members’ Bills. That consideration will take place on 1 February, 8 February, 1 March, 8 March and 15 March. I think that that is rather hopeful for those of us who serve on this Committee, because I was rather of the view that we were about to approach a point in the parliamentary calendar at which, even if the Government had served up a money resolution and we managed to complete consideration in Committee of the Bill, there would be no further days for us to consider it in the main Chamber.

However, the Leader of the House has helpfully tabled a motion, which I expect will pass later today, that means that, if the Government table the money resolution now, I have complete confidence that the Committee will be able to whiz through the Bill and make any necessary amendments. We could then take it back to the Floor of the House on the dates set out by the Leader of the House.

Finally, has the Minister had any conversations with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who is also chairman of the Conservative party, about this issue? We know, as it has been briefed to the press today, that Conservative campaign HQ has been preparing for the possibility of a snap general election, so I am interested to know whether the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has had discussions with his colleagues about expediting plans for 600 seats.

If the Conservative party is serious about going back to the country, I suspect that such considerations will have taken place in the Department, perhaps amplifying my view that this Government are more interested in their own party affairs than those of the country.

Leaving the European Union

Christian Matheson Excerpts

Monday 21st January 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We speak regularly—both I and, indeed, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland regularly speak—with all the political parties in Northern Ireland.

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

If the Prime Minister is so concerned about employment rights and if she is so concerned about environmental protection, why did it take two years and a defeat by 230 for them to be put on the agenda? If it is such a desperate afterthought, which it clearly is, why should we take seriously her protestations about being interested in them now?

[The Prime Minister]

The basis of the hon. Gentleman’s question is not correct. He asks about—he references—the commitment that we have in relation to workers’ rights. Look at what we have been doing to enhance workers’ rights: the Matthew Taylor report, because we recognise the importance of ensuring that the rights of workers in the new gig economy are properly protected. Look at what we have done on the environment in relation to plastics: the 25-year environment plan that we have published. We have been working on these issues. We recognise that Members of this House have raised concerns to ensure that greater assurance is given on those issues, and that is exactly what we are going to do.