Health and Social Care Update

Paula Barker Excerpts

Thursday 22nd September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

I know that my hon. Friend has been concerned about this issue for some time. As I have set out, GPs are, in effect, independent and we cannot force people to be in a particular part of the country. However, I know that the NHS has been working to target and bring doctors into places where there are not that many other doctors. I know that the primary care Minister will be happy to meet him.

[Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)]

Anyone marking the Secretary of State’s A, B, C, D homework would give her an F—an F for failing—as nothing we have heard today addresses the biggest threat to our NHS: the workforce crisis. The shortage of doctors, nurses and care workers is compromising patient safety and driving morale through the floor. So will she explain why the Government are yet again failing to address that and why she has talked today about volunteers and medics coming out of retirement, as surely the Government should be investing in a proper workforce strategy and also increasing the amount of people going through training?

[Dr Coffey]

We already are.

Seven Principles of Public Life

Paula Barker Excerpts

Wednesday 7th September 2022 Westminster Hall

[Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Seven Principles of Public Life.

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Twigg. I thank parliamentary colleagues who offered support in securing this important debate and those participating in it. Sadly, it does not seem to be very important to those on the Government Benches. I also thank staff at the House of Commons Library, who seldom get the thanks they deserve, for preparing an excellent briefing for today’s debate.

With a new Prime Minister being installed only yesterday, our politics and political system stand at a crossroads. We should use this moment to move beyond the controversy of the last premiership, to genuinely learn the lessons of the past couple of years, to truly understand the public’s anger, to collectively strive to be better and do better, to reaffirm our commitment to the Nolan principles, and to demonstrate that they mean something in the way we go about our business. However, I have little faith that this place—the so-called mother of all Parliaments—will achieve better. Far too much power is invested in the executive branch in an overly centralised system of governance—a centralisation of power that is incomparable to our counterparts—so I fear that the very nature of our democracy will inevitably see us lurch from scandal to scandal.

This place is full of good people with noble pursuits—those who do not need to understand any newly proposed descriptor of the Nolan principles to practise them in everything they do. Although I will not allow the new Prime Minister’s predecessor off the hook, our problems did not start with the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) and nor did they end with him, even though I believe with every fibre of my being that no one has eroded public trust in our institutions more than he has. He is a product of the changing face of the governing party: a Conservative party that is uninterested in conserving but is willing to trash and stretch constitutional norms to their limits in order to safeguard its self-preservation, in practice of its fundamental belief in its divine right to govern.

Louise Thompson, a senior lecturer in politics at the University of Manchester, summed it up nicely by stating that we cannot separate the personnel from the system and that the two can complement each other in the wrong ways. She said in The Week:

“His two and half years in Downing Street have exposed some of the vulnerabilities of British constitutional norms, demonstrating how the combination of a strong parliamentary majority, ambiguous ministerial and parliamentary rules and a national crisis can give prime ministers a seemingly free hand to dominate political life and avoid scrutiny.”

Lest we forget, it was under the Major Government that Lord Nolan, then chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, devised the seven principles of public life in 1995. The CSPL was established with the following terms of reference:

“To examine current concerns about standards of conduct of all holders of public office, including arrangements relating to financial and commercial activities, and make recommendations as to any changes in present arrangements which might be required to ensure the highest standards of propriety in public life.”

That was written in 1995. It is astonishing that such words could easily have been put together for the context in which we are operating as we gather here in 2022.

What is the context for today’s debate, and why is the debate necessary? In a democracy, governance requires consent and the popular support of the people we represent, but support for politics and politicians is at a record low. That was highlighted in an Institute for Public Policy Research report published late last year, which found that trust in politicians is at an all-time low and that the sharp decline in political trust is undermining liberal democracy. It found that almost two in three people now see politicians as being “merely out for themselves”. The study showed a “significant and disturbing” decline in satisfaction with democracy, and in trust in key democratic institutions.

The sleaze scandal around Owen Paterson at the time was just the tip of the iceberg of declining political trust. Heaven knows how much worse those numbers would have been if the research had been conducted following partygate and the numerous allegations of sexual abuse. In the mind of the public, there have been one too many rotten apples in the past few decades and the entire barrel is spoiled. In answer to my original question, that is why this debate matters. That is the context in which it takes place. To do nothing and say nothing is to be complicit.

The Nolan principles of selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership are, of course, not law. They are not directly enforced. However, they form part of many codes of conduct. For example, the ministerial code says that Ministers are expected to observe the seven principles of public life. The House of Commons code of conduct says that MPs are expected to follow the principles in the carrying out of their parliamentary duties.

There has been a flurry of activity in relatively recent times in this area. In November 2021, the House of Commons Committee on Standards—not to be confused with the CSPL—proposed bespoke descriptors of the seven principles for MPs, which were designed to more closely reflect how the principles apply to the role of an MP. In April 2022, the Committee took evidence from the then Leader of the House and the then Minister for the Cabinet Office on the Nolan principles.

Indeed, the deputy Leader of the Opposition called an urgent question on the mechanisms for upholding standards in public life in July 2022. I hope that we will hear a more suitable, bold response from the Minister today, rather than something echoing the evasive non-answer the then Paymaster General gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) back in July. On that day, the Paymaster General repeatedly mentioned the “sophisticated and robust” systems for upholding standards in public life. I am sorry, but what utter guff. I agree with the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg), who responded that,

“those systems are, on the whole, irrelevant if the participants have no regard to them.”—[Official Report, 5 July 2022; Vol. 717, c. 733.]

I believe our systems can be summed up in one word: irrelevant.

No such sophisticated, robust system exists in this place for upholding standards in public life. Acknowledgement of that basic fact by the Minister today would be, at the very least, a start. That is in stark contrast to other professions where the Nolan principles apply, such as healthcare and journalism. [Interruption.] The Minister may laugh, but it is a fact that in healthcare, the professional duty of candour requires that all healthcare professionals are open and honest with patients when something goes wrong. In the media, the Independent Press Standards Organisation’s editors’ code puts significant emphasis on not publishing inaccurate or misleading information or images. Where that does happen, it must be corrected promptly and with due prominence and, where appropriate, an apology must be published. Fundamentally, such differences in the practice of standards can only feed into the impression the public have that there is one rule for the people and another for us in this place.

I thank the organisation Full Fact for providing such examples ahead of this debate. It believes that to ensure a true commitment to honesty in public life, the honesty descriptor should include, in addition to the imperative to simply be truthful, an obligation or requirement to seek out, share and present information accurately and, crucially, to correct the record when necessary. I agree that that should be the case.

That leads me on to “Standards Matter 2”, a review conducted by the CSPL. I want to highlight some of the responses to the public consultation, which were consistently detailed and outcome-focused, and provided genuine suggestions on the enforcement of standards. I personally conclude that that is the only terrain on which this debate should be conducted—not empty platitudes about personal responsibility and self-regulation, which have been shown to get us nowhere.

For instance, the Centre for the Study of Corruption at the University of Sussex said in its response:

“UK standards in public life are in decline and at risk of declining further, with numerous recent breaches of integrity at the heart of politics and public life”.

It said:

“Dependence on established norms and personal integrity is no longer tenable when these are regularly undermined… The UK may need to move in some areas from principles to rules, backed up by enforceable sanctions”.

It went on to provide a raft of suggestions on sanctions, oversight and accountability. It suggested independent bodies, such as an anti-corruption agency free from political interference, in line with other mature democracies. That suggestion was also made by the likes of Transparency International UK, which highlighted the cronyism and nepotism at the heart of our system. I believe that public consultation document should be a starting point for cleaning up our democracy, and I implore everyone to read it.

To conclude, our system of governing standards is built on self-regulation, and the belief that we in this place know better—that we will always do the right thing. That arrogance has recently been reinforced by the new Prime Minister, who has stated that she may not need to appoint a new ethics adviser. She always acts with integrity. Who says that? The new Prime Minister herself. The Nolan principles are as relevant today as they were when they were devised, all those years ago. The next big question for this place is whether we are serious about those principles, in both word and deed. If we are, we can no longer hold on to the belief that we—the politicians—are best placed to regulate our adherence to them. Leadership starts at the top, starting with the Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paula Barker]

I thank the Minister for allowing me time to sum up, and all colleagues for their excellent speeches. We have heard lots of information today, and I want to touch on a couple of issues. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), the shadow Minister, that the public do care about the Nolan principles. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) that our system is broken, not because of neglect but because of deliberate decisions to break it. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) about the importance of an independent adviser, and how that should be a statutory post.

The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) talked about how perception matters in politics. I say to the Minister that perception does matter; the Nolan principles do matter. I would be grateful to the Minister if she could report back to the Prime Minister the disappointment from this side of the Chamber that no Conservative Back Benchers spoke in this debate, because it is incredibly important. Could she also convey to the Prime Minister that perception does matter and the Nolan principles matter?

It does not matter that the Prime Minister says that she will uphold them, and that she has integrity; she must demonstrate that by appointing an independent adviser. I am not saying that the Prime Minister is not going to uphold the principles. My point is that we had, in the former Prime Minister, someone who did not observe those principles. Quite frankly, that is not good enough for the public that we all seek to serve.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the Seven Principles of Public Life.

Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

Paula Barker Excerpts

Thursday 21st April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)]

It is often said that people are the products of their environment. Where I come from, empathy, tolerance and a sense of decency and fairness are all characteristics that many of our people in Liverpool hold dear. We struggle with the concepts of self-entitlement, haughtiness or selfishness. We pride ourselves on looking out for one another—our family, our friends and our communities—above all else.

By and large it is our commonality as human beings that has seen the British people come through difficult years. Contrary to the words of Margaret Thatcher, there is such a thing as society, and it has been on show each and every day of the pandemic. It is the food bank volunteer, the supermarket assistant, the care worker, the nurses and doctors who held the hands of the dying, and those who did the right thing and played by the rules as their mental health plummeted, who bit the bullet of loneliness and separation because the Prime Minister said that was what we had to do. However, what he meant to say was, “Do as I say, not as I do.”, because he was ripping up the rules and partying.

The pain endured by our people over the past two years has left a deep emotional scar on our collective psyche. The British people are now struggling to overcome the fact that their Prime Minister is incapable of the very sacrifices that they made for their loved ones and for the loves ones of people they had never met. No person like that is fit to be Prime Minister of this country. The Teflon has come off.

I am sure the Prime Minister will attempt to reinvent himself, for he covets power above all else. Before I entered this place, I asked myself why, as I suspect many hon. Members across the House did—“Why do I want to do this? What difference can I make?” I am still asking those questions today, hoping to leave a small mark on this place and on my constituency. I do not believe the Prime Minister has ever asked himself those fundamental questions. The “Why?” and the “Who for?” were never important to him. He has spent his whole life chasing power for power’s sake, leaving a trail of destruction in his wake. He has no interest in my Liverpool, Wavertree constituents, and the people of Uxbridge and South Ruislip will decide whether he has any interest in them.

The Prime Minister could fall on his sword, but of course he will not. The choice for Conservative Members is simple. Will they do the right thing today, in the interests of this country and of the office of the Prime Minister, or will they stick with the rotten apple? As the Prime Minister is so fond of a party, the right and proper thing for this House to do today is to give him a party he will never forget—a leaving party. Anything less simply undermines our democracy, and that is not good enough.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Ellis]

No, I do not think so.

I will close my speech by reiterating what the Prime Minister said yesterday: this Government’s focus is and always will be

“to deliver on the priorities of the British people”.

We will continue our efforts to work with our allies

“to face down Putin’s aggression abroad”.

We will address

“the toughest problems at home,”

as we have been doing,

“helping millions of families with the cost of living, making our streets safer and funding the NHS to clear the covid backlog.”

The Prime Minister is focused every day on making

“the British people safer, more secure and more prosperous”.—[Official Report, 20 April 2022; Vol. 712, c. 48-49.]

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House

(1) notes that, given the issue of fixed penalty notices by the police in relation to events in 10 Downing Street and the Cabinet Office, assertions the Rt hon Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip has made on the floor of the House about the legality of activities in 10 Downing Street and the Cabinet Office under Covid regulations, including but not limited to the following answers given at Prime Minister’s Questions: 1 December 2021, that “all guidance was followed in No. 10”, Official Report vol. 704, col. 909; 8 December 2021 that “I have been repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged that there was no party and that no Covid rules were broken”, Official Report vol. 705, col. 372; 8 December 2021 that “I am sickened myself and furious about that, but I repeat what I have said to him: I have been repeatedly assured that the rules were not broken”, Official Report vol. 705, col. 372 and 8 December 2021 “the guidance was followed and the rules were followed at all times”, Official Report vol. 705, col. 379, appear to amount to misleading the House; and

(2) orders that this matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges to consider whether the Rt hon Member’s conduct amounted to a contempt of the House, but that the Committee shall not begin substantive consideration of the matter until the inquiries currently being conducted by the Metropolitan Police have been concluded.

[Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, Yulia and her daughter Daria fled Ukraine as it was being bombed. They managed to get to Poland and applied for a visa to come to the UK on 1 April. My office has been in constant contact with the Home Office, which has advised us that the checks have been completed and the application is with the decision maker. Yulia and Daria were unable to board a flight to the UK this morning to get to safety with one of my constituents. They are now stranded. They have no food, no accommodation and no money. We have been advised by the Home Office that they should seek advice from the consulate because there is no direct flight back to the UK until next week, and no visa will be with them before Saturday. What can I do, Mr Deputy Speaker, to ensure the safety of Yulia and Daria?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order and her notice of it. Clearly this is a very important matter. Those on the Treasury Bench will have heard what has been said, and I implore that the message gets put through to the Home Secretary in order that this can be immediately looked at.

Easter Recess: Government Update

Paula Barker Excerpts

Tuesday 19th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)]

The fact that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have both been fined for breaking the very rules that they themselves set means that they are either incompetent or they think that the people of our country are beneath them. Either way, and with the prospect of further fines looming for the Prime Minister, they are not fit to occupy the two highest offices in the land. My constituents of Liverpool, Wavertree have overwhelmingly told me that they do not believe their apologies to be sincere, so the question for my constituents is when they can expect your resignations.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank her. Look, I cannot offer any further commentary on the investigation. All I can do is renew and repeat the apologies I have given to her constituents, whether they accept them or not.

Sue Gray Report

Paula Barker Excerpts

Monday 31st January 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am only too happy to assure the House that we intend to make changes starting from now and that I will keep the House updated.

[Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)]

When there is a failure of leadership and an inappropriate culture in an organisation, the person at the top should go. This outrageous debacle has not happened in spite of the Prime Minister; it has happened because of him. Will he now do the right thing and resign?

[The Prime Minister]

The answer is no, because I am going to wait for the conclusions of the inquiry before any of the assertions that the hon. Lady has made can be established.

Committee on Standards: Decision of the House

Paula Barker Excerpts

Monday 8th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) for securing this debate.

It saddens me that we find ourselves here today having to debate the consequences of the decision that the majority of those on the Government Benches took last week regarding the former Member for North Shropshire. Such a debate should be unnecessary, but sadly, due to the actions of last week, the consequences beyond this place are very clear: further erosion of public trust in our politics and its representatives, a real anger that it is one rule for the hard-working majority and another for politicians, and a growing sense of apathy that weakens our democracy and our institutions and makes us all poorer.

I have since wondered what my own constituents would think—indeed, do think, because many have contacted me—such as those facing fire and rehire, those struggling to make ends meet on universal credit, and those waiting on access to decent social care. The adage that yesterday’s news will be today’s chip paper will not hold true. So long as this Prime Minister remains in place, I fear that we will return to this dark place again and again. The substantial majority that the Government won at the last general election does not make them beyond reproach, it does not make the Prime Minister beyond reproach, and it does not make any hon. or right hon. Member in this place beyond reproach. The younger, newer intake on the Government Benches probably understand that. Like me, they probably thought they had entered a 1990s-time warp last week. When it came to the crunch, the old boys’ network reigned supreme. Frankly, I am fed up with this place lurching from one scandal to another. So too are my constituents, who expect better. Now is the time to draw a line in the sand.

In my opinion, we should prioritise two things, along with those outlined by the Leader of the Opposition. First, we should make corruption in public office a criminal offence that applies to any MP who falls short of the standards expected of them. Secondly, we should ban any MP from having a second job, unless that is required to maintain professional accreditations.

From where I come from and for the people I represent, an MP’s salary is more than enough to live on and, frankly, it is a full-time job if we are doing it properly. If the salary is not enough for the privileged class of MPs such as the likes of the former Member for North Shropshire—on any of the Benches but particularly the Government Benches—then to quote Lord Tebbit, “Get on your bike,” find another job and leave, because no one is forcing you to stay. If we do not all act, I fear that public hostility towards all Members will only get worse. After all, it only takes a few rotten apples to spoil the whole barrel. In the public’s eyes, everyone in this place is in the barrel.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

That is a very interesting response, because it still does not answer the question. The reality is—[Interruption.] No, with great respect, if we look at appendix 2 of the Committee’s report, there were 17 witness statements on Mr Paterson’s behalf set out in rigorous detail. In relation to milk and food safety, there was witness evidence from the chief vet, National Milk Laboratories and the former chair of the Food Standards Agency. That confirmed that within the framework of exemptions for Members’ actions in the public interest, the former Member’s actions made milk safer. On the question of the contamination of a ham product, Professor Chris Elliott, in unchallenged evidence, made it clear that what the former Member revealed was the worst case that that professor had seen in 35 years. On both matters, those witnesses’ genuinely expert opinions were not followed in establishing the facts and in justification of the former Member’s defence.

On the question of natural justice and of witness statements and evidence, it has been established over and again in the courts that every court or tribunal is obliged to accept and follow unchallenged witness evidence.

[Paula Barker]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Sir William Cash]

No, I do not have time and we need to move on.

It is established in the recent Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme that a judge must be—and now will be, as far as I can judge—embedded in the procedure. An investigatory panel would be set up only infrequently, in cases of serious contested issues of fact that would not and could not be properly decided, and where the test of natural justice would be failed unless the Member was given the opportunity to call witnesses and/or to cross-examine witnesses supporting the complaint.

That is made abundantly clear by the 2003 Committee report that I have already referred to—that Committee actually had eight Lib Dem and Labour members and only three Conservatives—so why a panel was never set up is a complete mystery. I heard the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) say that he was a stickler for parliamentary procedure and due process in Parliament, so why did he decline to invoke the natural justice provisions, including examination of witnesses, under his own Standing Orders and, furthermore, consistent with the tests of fairness set out by the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege?

Not only does every disciplinary committee in the land and other courts of justice and tribunals of every kind have rules of natural justice, but they have the right to appeal to the courts for judicial review. Members of Parliament cannot do so because of article 9 of the Bill of Rights, which includes things such as equality of arms, examination of witnesses and no delay. The reality is that in this instance—in this serious, contested case—there has been a failure of natural justice.

I do not know, and now nobody will ever know, what the investigatory panel would have discovered, because it was never invoked. It is most regrettable and a deep contribution to this tragedy—it is the centre of gravity of this problem—that the rules of natural justice, which are prescribed under the Standing Orders, were not applied. I stand by that, because it is evident on the face of the facts and the law.

Covid-19: NAO Report on Government Procurement

Paula Barker Excerpts

Wednesday 9th December 2020 Westminster Hall

[Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)]

Thank you, Ms Eagle. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) on securing this important debate. It is, of course, regrettable that this comes on the back of the National Audit Office investigation into Government procurement during the pandemic. The report itself, as hon. Members have pointed out and no doubt will continue to do so during this debate, is critical of the Government’s failure to guarantee transparency that should provide absolute confidence in the use of public funds.

I am sure Members from across the House will sympathise with the hand the Government have been dealt this year. No one could have anticipated a crisis on the scale we have witnessed, and it is natural that mistakes have been made along the way. However, in the interests of accountability, transparency and overall good governance, it is wholly wrong for a Government to hide behind such unfortunate circumstances while dismissing the concerns of Opposition politicians. We have asked probing questions—and yes, levelled criticisms—while seeking to provide appropriate scrutiny of and seek clarity on the decisions made in Whitehall offices. Such endeavours are prerequisites of a healthy parliamentary debate.

Despite that, it seems that the level of immaturity and arrogance that has infected the Conservative party of 2020 is tantamount to that of a petulant schoolchild: on one hand demanding praise and pats on the head for the things it gets right, while at the same time demonstrating outright dismissal when pulled up on its litany of failures. Most of my constituents work in the private sector and their livelihoods depend on it, so it is pretty galling to hear, repeatedly, the superficial retort that our opposition is based on some false hatred of anything beyond the public sector.

In a feat of human ingenuity and brilliance, we now have a vaccine being rolled out across the country. At the same time, a week is barely seen out without yet another story of Government cronyism emerging; companies with no track record or experience in delivering comprehensive outcomes on anything are awarded contracts to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ cash. The only thing the public can visibly note as the primary commissioning criterion is the obvious and apparent connections to the governing party.

Only last week, a Government Minister, Lord Bethell, was asked directly whether the Government intended to publish a list of companies that were contracted to supply PPE as a result of the high-priority lane. Owing to the so-called “commercial implications”, the Government made clear their intention not to publish the list of suppliers. That sort of culture and practice has been heavily criticised by the NAO.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paula Barker Excerpts

Wednesday 4th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Yes indeed, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on lobbying for Middlesbrough in the way that he has. I can tell him that Tees Valley is already getting £126 million from the local growth fund. The devolution deal will mean £450 million extra for transport, skills and employment, and Middlesbrough will get at least £500,000 from the towns fund, thanks at least in part to his lobbying.

[Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)]

May I join in the congratulations to you, Mr Speaker, on your first anniversary? Private care homes such as St Martin’s in my constituency of Liverpool, Wavertree, are closing because under-occupancy is making them financially unviable, but moving people into new care settings, especially during a pandemic, is full of risk. With the winter care plan falling short, will the Prime Minister commit now to providing additional funding specifically for social care, to help local authorities meet their statutory responsibilities and to prevent further care home closures?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady is right to draw attention to the issue. In addition to the £600 million care home action plan that we announced earlier this year, we will put further funding into care homes in the short term, but also making sure that we have long-term reform of that sector. As I said to the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) earlier, we will bring out specific guidance to enable people to visit loved ones in the way that they should and they must.

External Private Contractors: Government Use and Employment

Paula Barker Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2020 Westminster Hall

[Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government use of external private contractors and effect on employment.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. The question before the House is the use of external private contractors and its effect on employment. I am grateful to hon. Members for participating in this important debate. The recent pandemic has shone a spotlight on public sector procurement and the awarding of contracts. Although it is incumbent on the Government to ensure value for money for the taxpayer and quality of service delivery, they also have a duty, whether they like it or not, to those workers tasked with delivering services on which both Government and public rely. I believe that, on all fronts, the Government are failing in their responsibilities in that regard and so are failing taxpayers and workers alike.

Recent examples include the likes of Serco, which has received beyond hefty sums of taxpayer cash to run a failed test and trace system. The revolving door of Government, ex-Ministers and outsourcing companies is pernicious in every sense and does little to instil public confidence in a method of service delivery that is fundamentally flawed. I hope that other Members will speak more on this Government failure as the debate progresses. They will no doubt highlight other examples of failed contracts worth hundreds of millions of pounds.

I have chosen to concentrate on the example of civil service facilities management work in this speech, but if we substituted for the civil service nearly every NHS trust, many councils and other public sector bodies, my observations would unfortunately still be valid. The experience of the civil service is generally the same as that across the public sector, but I particularly wanted to concentrate on the civil service, as I am hoping that Ministers will now start to consider the outsourcing model itself.

It goes without saying that if workers win improvements through union action, that immediately has an impact on the outsource company’s bottom line. Those companies, especially where there is no trade union recognition, then tend to try to recoup lost revenue by cutting staff or their working hours. There are natural limits to productivity gains made through cutting staff. Inherently, the model is unstable and leads to companies running into financial difficulties.

Let us look at the Mitie-Interserve merger. My argument is well illustrated by the announcement in June that Mitie and Interserve’s facilities management arm are to merge at the end of the year, subject to shareholders approving a £271 million share purchase. In reality, Mitie is taking over Interserve. Both companies hold a number of civil service and public sector contracts, worth more than £2 billion of public money. Mitie’s biggest contract is for the provision of in-country and overseas escorting for the Home Office. That contract is worth £514 million. Interserve’s biggest contract is the Department for Work and Pensions estate and facilities management contract, worth £225 million.

Interserve has clearly been in financial difficulty for some time. Last year, it went into pre-pack administration. At that time, the Labour party called for a temporary ban on Interserve bidding for public contracts, but that call was not heeded. We know that Interserve was awarded a five-year facilities management contract worth £670 million by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in early August 2018. Shortly after that contract was awarded, Interserve moved to cut staff, and Public and Commercial Services union members went into a long-running dispute over job cuts, pay, sick pay entitlement and trade union recognition. The company issued profit warnings in March 2015, then two more in 2016, and another as recently as 2018.

Mitie has been involved in multiple disputes with its employees: we can cite the Royal Opera House, the Houses of Parliament, First Great Western, London Underground, and various NHS hospitals. It was subject to an investigation into its MiHomecare business by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs for paying its employees less than the minimum wage. Industrial relations in Mitie are so bad that in March 2019, Unite the union said that it should be barred from acquiring contracts due to its woeful treatment of its workforce. That Unite warning is interesting, as even a few months ago it was clear that Mitie and Interserve were considering a deal.

This is where the similarities with Carillion might be interesting to consider, so what can we learn from the lessons of Carillion? The report of the joint inquiry by the Select Committees on Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and on Work and Pensions recommended

“that the Government immediately reviews the role and responsibilities of its Crown Representatives in the light of the Carillion case. This review should consider whether devoting more resources to liaison with strategic suppliers would offer better value for the taxpayer.”

I do not know whether that recommendation was acted on in relation to facilities management contracts in the civil service, but it does not appear to have been exercised in this instance to scrutinise Mitie and Interserve.

Moving on to the issue of inequality in pay and employment terms, each civil service department has to comply with the public sector equality duty. The civil service does not have to award contracts where only the minimum wage is paid, statutory sick pay is given, and trade union recognition is not a right. It could choose to make the payment of the real living wage, full sick pay from day one, and trade union recognition a condition of the contract, as many local authorities have begun to do.

Research carried out by the PCS union shows that only two of the 23 ministerial Government Departments pay the real living wage to their facilities management outsourced workers, and no Department includes a policy of paying more than the statutory sick pay as a requirement of awarding a contract. Departments know that in their major urban areas, cleaners, security guards and so on are predominantly of black, Asian and minority ethnic origin, and nearly all cleaners are women regardless of where they work. From the observations of the PCS union, as relayed to me, senior managers and certainly Ministers believe that outsourcing work means they have no responsibility to those facilities management workers, whether in terms of pay, terms and conditions of employment, equality of treatment, or health and safety.

If we look at that indifference to health and safety obligations, we find that even though health and safety laws put clear obligations on civil service departments and facilities management companies working in the same buildings to co-operate and co-ordinate their health and safety at work—that is, regulation 11 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999—in reality we have had immense difficulty in getting the civil service to comply with the law. That indifference leads to what we see as a grotesque admission by the Cabinet Office, which we take as a proxy for the civil service, that it does not know how many facilities management workers have died due to covid, let alone their ethnicity. We know that at least six facilities management outsourced staff have died owing to the virus, all of them of BAME origin.

Turning to the issue of sick pay, in a recent survey—again conducted by PCS—86% of outsourced facilities management workers who responded said that they had often continued to work when they had been unwell because they could not afford to take time off sick.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

I thank my Unison comrade for giving way. To support that particular proposition, there is a Unison briefing that shows that in schools in England, many of the private companies are only paying statutory sick pay. Does the hon. Lady agree that this puts people in the position of having to choose between statutory sick pay and going into work, which is more likely to spread the virus?

[Paula Barker]

Sadly, I concur with the hon. Gentleman’s observations. Covid-19 has brought into sharp focus the inequality between the sick pay provisions of civil servants and those of outsourced workers employed on civil service contracts.

Through PCS talks during covid-19, most civil service departments adopted a policy of paying their outsourced staff full pay for covid-19-related absences until the end of June 2020. From July 2020, Cabinet Office guidance was updated to allow the arrangement to continue where appropriate. As part of PCS’s campaign to defend and extend the right to full sick pay, it wrote to the Prime Minister in June, setting out the case for all outsourced Government workers to be paid full sick pay from day one. Disappointingly, there has been no response.

Does outsourcing facilities management services achieve social value? The simple answer is no. Section 1(3) of the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 requires a public sector authority to consider how a procurement

“might improve the economic, social and environmental well-being of the relevant area”.

When awarding central Government contracts, the Cabinet Office is obliged to consider the wider social benefits of procurement to ensure that cost does not override other Government considerations.

I want to take the opportunity to thank you, Mr Pritchard, for overseeing today’s debate. Let us move forward by initiating an open, frank and honest debate, with which I hope the Government will actively engage in the coming period. Value for money is not always delivered by the current procurement and outsourcing arrangements. For a Government who claim to pride themselves on hating waste, the reality is that nothing could be further from the truth.

The Government should be ambitious and see what services can now be brought back in-house. Fundamentally, the truth remains that when workers are paid properly and valued, productivity is better. After a long, difficult year for so many workers, the Government have often waxed lyrical. It is high time that politicians clearly show whose back they have—the cleaners, the contact tracers, the security staff and all manner of low-paid staff, or the directors of outsourcing companies.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

I am going to set an informal time limit of three minutes, but if colleagues could be a bit quicker we might have some time for a two-minute reply later. Obviously, there are five minutes for the Scottish National party spokesman and the shadow Minister, and 10 minutes for the Minister. Thank you for your co-operation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paula Barker]

I thank you, Mr Pritchard, for chairing this important debate today, and I thank all hon. Members who have spoken and the Minister for her considered approach.

The Minister said that the Government are the custodian of public money, and that it is important to retain public trust. I reiterate that public trust is at an all-time low, particularly in my constituency. I would be grateful if the Minister can take up the very important issues raised today.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Government use of external private contractors and effect on employment.

Covid-19 Update

Paula Barker Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I agree totally with my hon. Friend, and it should be Think Clean week in Watford and across the whole of the UK.

[Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)]

Today the Government have placed Merseyside into tier 3 lockdown. For 10 long years, my city has been under the boot of Tory austerity, and now the Prime Minister intends to shut down our economy while keeping furlough support at 67%, which has all the hallmarks of once again placing our city into a state of managed decline. Will he listen to our metro Mayor, our city Mayor and local MPs and stump up the cash for a furlough scheme based on 80% of wages, without the reliance, as he keeps saying, on universal credit? If it was the right thing to do in March, it is the right thing to do now.

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to Steve Rotheram and other leaders in that area for the support they are giving for the measures we are putting in place. I think that they understand the real dilemma that we face, which is that we must get the virus down but we must also keep the economy going and support jobs. That is what we are doing.