Grenfell Tower Inquiry

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Wednesday 30th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I recognise that since this terrible tragedy took place, significant efforts have been made to ensure that the survivors—those who have lost so much—have been provided with accommodation that is suitable for their needs. I know that in the early stages many people felt that that work did not go as quickly as it should have done. I recognise, too, that in the struggle that the survivors have been facing to ensure that justice can be done, that the truth can be uncovered, and, crucially, that responsibility for what happened is identified, they have felt that the response of Government at national and local level has not always been as swift or as full as they wished it to be. Every effort will be made, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, to continue the work to support the families of those who suffered this terrible experience in this appalling tragedy. There are other aspects of support that need to be provided in the longer term as well, not least the question of providing mental health support for people who have been affected by this tragedy.

Of course, today we can only look at phase 1 of the inquiry, because that is the report that is before us. One thing that comes through from phase 1 and will be clear to anybody who has met or has had any discussions with members of the Grenfell community is the care that they feel for each other—not just care within families, but care for friends and neighbours, too, and, indeed, for their whole community. The Grenfell community has a lot to teach all of us about the true meaning of community.

It was that care for each other that led to their raising their concerns and fears, over a period of time, about the safety of the building in which they lived. Concerns were brought home to me at a very early stage—when I first met survivors from Grenfell Tower—that they had been raising these issues about the safety of their building over a period of time, and yet those issues, their voices and those concerns had gone unheeded and had been ignored. I want to go on to reference some of the shocking aspects of this report, but I think that one of the most shocking features that has come out of consideration of what happened at Grenfell Tower is that those people had been genuinely raising matters about safety and yet felt that those matters were just completely ignored—and in some cases they were indeed just completely ignored. That was what led to the work to look at social housing across the country. I am grateful that a number of Housing Ministers undertook that work.

I see my right hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma), the first Housing Minister who started that work, in his place on the Treasury Bench. That work was due to lead to a social housing Green Paper. I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister reference a social housing White Paper. We are now about to go into an election. There is purdah, but I urge the Government, as soon as possible after Parliament is reconvened, to publish that White Paper, because change is needed to ensure that those who are living in social housing are able to have their voices heard so they can have the confidence that, when they raise issues, those issues will be acted on, and if they are not, they can seek redress in order to ensure that their concerns are being heard.

There are other shocking aspects of this report on which I wish to touch briefly. Some of them relate to the conclusions on the London Fire Brigade. Our emergency services do an amazing job, day in and day out, and there is absolutely no doubt that, on that fateful night, individual firefighters gave totally of themselves. They bravely went into a building with a fire whose like, as they said to me afterwards, they had never seen before, yet they bravely put themselves in danger to try to rescue others. None the less, it is also clear from Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s report that there were questions over the command structure, training and communications in London Fire Brigade, which all need to be addressed.

When there is an emergency, we are used to seeing—indeed we expect to see—our emergency services working seamlessly, both in teams within an individual service but also in services working together. Sadly, on that fateful night, that was not the case. Now these were the most challenging of circumstances. None of us should take away from the fact that people were dealing with something that they had not seen the like of before and were having to respond with instant and split-second decisions. But there is absolutely no doubt from the report that the lack of communication and of the passing on of crucial information had an impact on the response. Sir Martin Moore-Bick states in the report:

“The chaotic nature of the communication links meant that neither the control room nor the command units nor the incident commander could know whether rescue attempts had been made in response to calls, or if they had, what had been the outcomes.”

That seamless working together is important within teams but also across the services. It is very important that when our emergency services attend an emergency, they are able to work together in the best possible way to deal with it.

When I was Home Secretary, I oversaw the work on the joint emergency services interoperability principles, or JESIP. The whole purpose of that work was to ensure that there was a way of our emergency services working together that enabled them to provide the service we wanted them to provide. And yet on this night, a major incident was declared by each of the services at different times, but they did not communicate that to each other. Sir Martin Moore-Bick makes that point when he says:

“One of the consequences of the declaration of a Major Incident by the emergency services is that there should be a multi-agency conversation between the control room leads. This was a requirement of the joint operating requirements established under the Joint Doctrine…That was also a requirement of the Procedure Manual…The evidence that such a conversation…took place is at best unclear.”

This need to communicate is very important and it is absolutely right that Sir Martin Moore-Bick has raised it as an issue that needs to be addressed in his recommendations.

I want to comment on what in many ways must be the most heartbreaking aspect of the report for the survivors: the use of the doctrine “stay put”. I can quite understand why there was a doctrine of staying put. The experience was that a fire in a flat within a tower block would normally remain in that flat and would be able to be dealt with in that flat—compartmentalisation or containment within a flat. But of course that did not happen in this circumstance; something else happened because of the cladding on the outside of the building.

The doctrine of “stay put” had been developed for good reasons, based on the normal experiences of firefighters. The problem was not the fact that that was the doctrine in such circumstances; the problem was that there was no flexibility to know how to deal with and respond to different circumstances. As we see in the report, at a point in time—the Prime Minister referenced that point—a decision was taken to evacuate rather than to continue to operate the “stay put” doctrine, but even at that time the messages that were getting through were not clear and the messages being given by the control room were not as clear as they should have been. One of the issues here is making sure that there is training to ensure that those who are making decisions on the ground know that they have the flexibility to make a different decision, but also know when and how to exercise that flexibility.

This doctrine did have an impact. On the Friday after the fire I was visiting survivors in hospital, where I met one family, the father of which told me that he, his wife and child had been told to stay put in their flat and that others had been brought into their flat as a place of safety. There came a point when this father took the decision that they could no longer stay in the flat, so he said what he was going to do and took himself, his wife and his child out of their flat. They survived. The others did not. So this doctrine did have an impact that night.

The worst thing that could happen now would be to lurch to having everyone say, “We can’t have ‘stay put’ at all”, because there will be circumstances in which “stay put” is still the right advice to give. But what is important is that flexibility is provided, and that training is given so that individuals know when and how they can exercise that flexibility and change the advice.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

If there is to be this change—a flexibility, under which there may be a full evacuation from time to time—would the right hon. Lady agree that it would be essential for buildings to have sprinkler systems, at least in communal areas, more than one means of escape and a central alarm system, and that Grenfell Tower would have benefited from those measures? Would she support those provisions being introduced in new buildings and retrofitted?

[Mrs May]

I have been asked about sprinklers on a number of occasions. Of course, the response to the Lakanal House fire was not that sprinklers should be fitted in all high tower blocks, but that the landlord should look at that issue. Sir Martin Moore-Bick is going to address the issue of sprinklers in part 2 of the inquiry, and he references that and makes the point that I have just made about the Lakanal House fire in this report. On the issue of the means of escape, there was a central stairway in Grenfell Tower, and I think firefighters have raised the question of the means of escape in that regard. This is another issue that part 2 of the inquiry is likely to look at, as it is looking at the requirements and regulations necessary for the future.

There are issues about the cladding itself and about the responsibility for why the fire was able to happen because of the circumstances of the building. I set up the inquiry to get to the truth, and Sir Martin Moore- Bick has shown that he is capable of and determined to get to the truth. His report so far has been clear and uncompromising, and I have every expectation that his report on part 2 of the inquiry will also be clear and uncompromising, whoever or whatever it needs to address.

I welcome the Government’s commitments, set out by the Prime Minister, to accept the recommendations, but change requires a willingness to change. I refer to paragraph 28.55 in volume 4 of the report, where Sir Martin Moore-Bick references the evidence of the Commissioner of the London Fire Brigade and says that he feels that it

“only serves to demonstrate that the LFB is an institution at risk of not learning the lessons of the Grenfell Tower fire.”

For the families and friends of those who lost their lives, the pain of that loss will never go away. But for their sake, and in memory of all who lost their lives, the lessons must be learned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

With hindsight, I think we could have had part 2 of the inquiry first, because those are the difficult and complex issues of culpability that need to be addressed. Although there are policy issues such as “stay put” that come out of part 1, there is also a concentration on individual action. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Emma Dent Coad), whom I, too, compliment on the role she has played: I would rather the politicians and the corporate chisellers had been identified.

Very little progress has been made on cladding. I have read the briefings for this debate from the Royal Institute of British Architects, the London Fire Brigade and Rockwool. Yes, there is a ban on combustible cladding on high-rise residential buildings over 18 metres, but what about non-residential high-rise buildings, including hotels and offices? What about high-risk buildings under 18 metres, such as schools, hospitals, care homes and sheltered housing, and what about the range of materials? It is not just ACM cladding; there is now the high-pressure laminate cladding and many other types. The Government have only scratched the surface of these matters.

On the “stay put” policy, I intervened on the former Prime Minister because I hoped she might agree and say not just that these things might be in the inquiry, but that, if there is a problem fitting sprinklers in leasehold properties, at least they could be put in communal areas. One cannot vary the “stay put” policy unless there is a reliable means of evacuation, which requires more than one means of escape. Planning consent is being given now for tower blocks in my constituency built on the Grenfell model with one central staircase. That has to change. We have to have alarm systems.

We also have to crack down on product safety. A block of flats in my constituency, Shepherds Court, which was not compartmentalised, caught fire a year before Grenfell. That fire was also caused by a defective white good manufactured by the Whirlpool corporation. We need to be much tighter on these issues.

My final point goes beyond the Moore-Bick inquiry, but it concerns a matter that the Government have themselves highlighted. I have as yet seen no sign of a changed attitude towards social housing generally. Less than a mile from Grenfell are the West Kensington Gibbs Green estates, which, through the collusion of developers and Conservative politicians, have been blighted for 10 years. Two thousand people have lived in those homes without any security because of the greed of developers, who are now suffering because of the current climate. I should like the Secretary of State to go down to those estates with me, and see whether that changed attitude can apply not just to fire safety in Grenfell but across the board in social housing.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Once again, the voice of Scotland—the voice of Angus. I thank my hon. Friend very much. We are indeed engaged in not just levelling up the provision of gigabit broadband across the whole of the country but improving the 4G mobile signal as well. It is our ambition to have 95% of the UK covered by the 4G mobile signal. We have made changes to the regulations and the planning laws to make it easier for the infrastructure to be put in place—and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has just assured me that her particular request is going to be addressed.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Q12. The Mayor of London has cut air pollution in central London by a third in the first six months of his ultra low emission zone. Does the Prime Minister support the Mayor’s plan to expand that zone and does he still oppose the third runway at Heathrow that will reverse these gains?

[The Prime Minister]

I am as scandalised as the hon. Gentleman about the failure of the Mayor of London to improve air quality, if that is what I understood him to have just said. When I was Mayor of London, just to pick a period entirely at random, we cut NOx—nitrous oxide—emissions by, I think, 16% and we cut particulates by 20%. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that this Government have the most far-reaching ambitions of any society in the EU to improve air quality. As for the Heathrow third runway, it remains the case that I have lively doubts about the ability of the promoters of that scheme, as I think he does, to meet standards on air quality and noise emissions, and we will have to see how the courts adjudicate in that matter.

Prime Minister's Update

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Wednesday 25th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I have tried to show every possible humility today, to the House, to hon. Members and to the court and its judgment, but the best way we can all collectively show humility as parliamentarians is to deliver on the will of the people, and that is what we will do. We could also show some humility by stopping talking exclusively about ourselves and Brexit, and getting on with delivering on the priorities of the British people. That is why we wanted a Queen’s Speech. I think they want to hear what we are going to do to support their healthcare services, bring down crime on their streets and improve their schools. Those are the priorities of this Government.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The judgment of the Supreme Court found that the Prime Minister had acted unlawfully and outside his powers in the advice he gave the monarch. He has just said again that he believes the court was wrong. Will he confirm that he has read the judgment? If he has, could he point us to the errors of law or fact that he says the 11 justices made?

[The Prime Minister]

If the hon. Gentleman would study my statement, he will see exactly what I meant. My views are shared, by the way, by the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls, who I think even he would accept are quite eminent legal authorities.

Prorogation of Parliament

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2019 Westminster Hall

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

I apologise for not being here at the beginning of the debate; I was giving evidence to the review panel on High Speed 2. That issue is one reason why I am very concerned about the length of this Prorogation. HS2 phase 2a, which is being considered by Parliament and approaching the House of Lords, has a huge impact on my constituents, so it was important to be able to give evidence to the panel. I will come to the other things we will be prevented from doing in the coming weeks by this excessive Prorogation. It is right that we should have a Prorogation—I am fully in favour of a new Queen’s Speech—but it should not last until 14 October.

My plea to the Government is that we should come back at the latest on 7 October, if not on 3 October, once all party conferences have concluded. That is plenty of time. We are in the midst of a crisis in Parliament and in the country. We need to respect the result of the 2016 referendum and leave the European Union but do so with a deal in an orderly way, as set out by the manifesto on which I stood in 2017. The problem with coming back from Prorogation on 14 October is that that leaves little time for Parliament to consider the new deal or revised deal that I firmly hope the Prime Minister will bring back—even perhaps in draft, if it is in advance of the European Council on 17 October. It is our responsibility to look at that. Indeed, as a member of the newly formed grouping of MPs for a deal, I will work with Members of Parliament from across the House to ensure that there is an opportunity to arrive at a deal that achieves a majority in this House.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Like the hon. Gentleman, I was giving evidence to the HS2 panel, as well as meeting Extinction Rebellion and indeed Dignity in Dying, and Shelter. I wonder why it can be said that we have little to do here if we have to try to be in five places at once. I admire what he said on Prorogation. Will he go a stage further and say that we should at least remain Members of Parliament so that we can still lobby and come back some time in October? Were an election to go ahead, we would have no control over that whatsoever. As the Prime Minister has said he may be equivocal about obeying the law, an election is to be avoided at all costs.

[Mrs Anne Main in the Chair.]

[Jeremy Lefroy]

The hon. Gentleman and I were together at the HS2 panel and I listened carefully to the important points he made about Old Oak Common and the surrounding area that is affected by HS2. I am in a quandary about an election. On the one hand, it would be decisive. I suspect it would be run on the lines of remain, leave or leave with a deal, and it would be a chance for the people to decide, in a manner of speaking. On the other hand, I see what he says: if we have an election, we will not be able to make these points. Prorogation leaves us in a halfway house where we cannot raise points in Parliament and we do not have the decisiveness of an election; it is neither fish nor fowl.

There are two main reasons why I do not want to see Parliament prorogued for as long as proposed—and the Government could still request for Prorogation to be for less time. First, we need more time to consider really important matters such as the prospective deal, which I very much hope the Prime Minister is committed to bringing before this House, and which, in some form or other, will be passed by this House so that we can fulfil the referendum result and leave in an orderly fashion.

It is also extremely important to bring up constituency matters. With your permission, Mrs Main, I will give a few examples, because I will not be able to do so at business questions or other times. First, a constituent of mine, Staff Sergeant Proverbs, who has just left the Army after 20 years of active service to this country in a number of theatres, was injured on duty at NATO headquarters in this country, yet because of the intricacies of the rules around pensions and disability, he is being deprived of a proper disability payment and disability pension. I have taken up his case with the Minister for the Armed Forces and the Minister for Defence People and Veterans and had a sympathetic hearing, but the Ministry of Defence is not dealing with my constituent in a proper manner. As a result, he faces a much lower level of income, despite his disability, which was incurred in the course of serving our country.

I also raise the case again—I have done so before in the House of Commons—of my constituent, Mr Gray, on whose behalf on a serious matter I have written to Barclays a number of times to request a meeting, but Barclays has still not replied to me.

I also want to raise the fact that not long ago I had a debate on the manipulation of precious metal prices, which is a serious matter that is fundamental to the financial system of this country and the whole world. We had a good response from the Minister but there are serious outstanding matters that need to be raised in Parliament and discussed here.

I could go on, and I am sure other Members could do the same, but it is clear to me that we need the time in Parliament. Clearly, the Government need time to prepare the Queen’s Speech. I understand that, but a couple of weeks is more than enough. It is not as if they are starting on it ab initio or that as from tomorrow they will start thinking about the Queen’s Speech. They have been thinking about it for a long time, and rightly so. Two or three weeks maximum is more than enough time. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to communicate to his colleagues in Government and to the Prime Minister that if we could resume on 3 October or, at the very latest, 7 October, it would be welcomed across the House.

Priorities for Government

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend. She may have noticed that in the course of the recent election campaign I made it absolutely clear that we will accelerate the programme of full fibre broadband by eight years, so that every household in this country gets full fibre broadband within the next five years.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Will the Prime Minister order an inquiry into the £76 million that was wasted paying management consultants to work on the “Shaping a Healthier Future” programme for north-west London, which the Health Secretary has now abandoned after nine years?

[The Prime Minister]

I can certainly say that the “Shaping a Healthier Future” programme for north-west London has not perhaps delivered the results that we wanted. I think the hon. Gentleman and I share a constituency interest, shall we say, in ensuring that we get the improvements to healthcare not just in north-west London but across the country. That is why this party and this Government are spending an extra £20 billion. That is why yesterday I announced new upgrades for 20 hospitals across the country, including some, I believe, in north-west London.

Detainees

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Thursday 18th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

The problem with what the hon. Lady suggests is that, because so much of the information and documentation would have to remain secret for good security reasons, that could not provide such reassurance. It is the independence of the commissioner and the Committee that is the best and most compelling assurance we can give people.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

If matters are escalated to Ministers, will they be prohibited from authorising action that carries a real risk of torture?

[Mr Lidington]

I cannot see any circumstance in which a Minister of the United Kingdom would authorise action that was contrary to the law.

Detainee Mistreatment: Judge-led Inquiry

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Monday 15th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

It is important that we demonstrate through our actions, not just our words, our commitment to human rights. Moreover, when one has the privilege of speaking to officers in the intelligence agencies about these matters, they make it clear that they want to uphold human rights. The intelligence agencies have to operate within the statutory remit that Parliament has given them. Anything that they do that breaches their lawful purpose and objective is something that they should not do.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Although the Gibson and ISC inquiries were curtailed or restricted, nevertheless they revealed hundreds of cases in which the UK was complicit or benefited from torture or mistreatment. Does that not mean that there is more of a case to set up such an inquiry than there was nine years ago, when the then Prime Minister said that there should be a judge-led inquiry

“fully independent of Parliament, party and Government”—[Official Report, 6 July 2010; Vol. 513, c. 181]?

The only thing that has changed in those nine years is that it would be difficult now to reach the truth because of the effluxion of time. Will the Minister at least say that there will be an inquiry, even if we hear the details later this week?

[Mr Lidington]

I disagree with the hon. Gentleman in his assertion that little has changed. There have been important statutory changes in the Justice and Security Act 2013 and the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. There have been important changes in the powers of the Intelligence and Security Committee, and in the statutory basis of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, and in the practice that Ministers must be consulted whenever an intelligence officer involved in a planned operation believes that a detainee is at risk of mistreatment by a foreign state. That obligation applies even when consulting a Minister might be thought to lead to a risk of a terrorist act succeeding. The rules are much stricter than they once were.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Wednesday 5th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting this initiative in Bolton. As he knows, high streets are changing, and the Government are committed to helping communities such as Bolton to adapt to that change. We have already set in hand the £675 million future high streets fund, and we welcome Bolton Council’s applications, which are being assessed, alongside other applications. We will make an announcement about the places that are successful later this summer, and I know that my hon. Friend will continue to be a very doughty champion for his city.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Q9. My local NHS is cutting GP hours while it and NHS England are forced to subsidise a private company, Babylon GP at hand, which has sucked up more than 50,000 patients for its controversial app-based system, undermining GPs across London and beyond. Given that the Health Secretary is Babylon’s biggest cheerleader, why should my constituents trust this Government to keep the NHS public any more than they would trust Donald Trump?

[Mr Lidington]

NHS England is, I understand, increasing the baseline funding of the Hammersmith and Fulham clinical commissioning group to ensure that it is not financially disadvantaged by hosting GP at hand. But to improve its service to patients, the NHS is going to need to embrace innovation. Digital technologies such as those used by GP at hand do offer convenience for patients and often allow clinicians to work more efficiently. That is why our new GP contract gives everyone the right to digital first primary care, including web and video consultations from 2021, if that is what they want to receive.

Housing Associations and Public Contractors: Freedom of Information

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Wednesday 6th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered extending the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to housing associations and public contractors.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. This issue is very dear to my heart and, I know, to those of several colleagues. I am pleased to see the hon. Members who have attended, particularly the Scottish National party spokesperson, the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard), who is here on his 60th birthday. I will try to keep my remarks on this complex and interesting topic within reasonable bounds.

I start by referring to a report from BuzzFeed News this morning on the specialist police unit that investigates crimes against MPs, which has received 558 complaints since it was set up after the tragic death of our colleague Jo Cox in 2016. Those complaints include four assaults, five bomb threats, seven hoax noxious powders, four reports of trespassing and 20 reports of criminal damage. There has been a threefold increase in reporting in the second half of that period since 2016, compared with the first part. I would have thought that was of great interest to many people, and particularly to Members.

Those details were obtained under the auspices of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and are just one topical example of the importance of that Act, which was one of the great successes of the last Labour Government. It is used by individuals, campaign groups, journalists and Members to obtain information that the Government and public authorities have been unwilling to disclose voluntarily. In a 2012 report, the Justice Committee described it as

“a significant enhancement of our democracy.”

In a Supreme Court judgment of the same year, Lord Mance said the Act

“reflects the value to be attached to transparency and openness in the workings of public authorities in modern society”,

while Lord Phillips said it

“adds to parliamentary scrutiny a further and more direct route to a measure of public accountability”.

It is therefore sad that some former exponents of the Act have in the past 20 years sought to limit its scope, usually on one of two grounds. The first is on policy grounds, saying that they believe the Act restricts the ability of the Government to debate freely, because sensitive matters might be disclosed, which is at least honest. Secondly, and more commonly, it is on resource grounds by trying to restrict the amount of money spent by public authorities on responding to inquiries inquiry, which is ostensibly to save public money but is really to restrict the right of the public and others to freedom of information.

I am afraid that that still goes on. The excellent Campaign for Freedom of Information published a report only this week on the variation between London councils’ response times to freedom of information inquiries. I will not go there, because that is not the topic of the debate, but that report bears a lot of scrutiny, as all its reports do. Interestingly, the establishment of the Independent Commission on Freedom of Information, chaired by Lord Burns, by the coalition Government was widely believed to be paving the way for new restrictions; I believed that it was. However, having looked at the merits of freedom of information, it ended up recommending the opposite. Its 2016 report found that freedom of information had “enhanced openness and transparency”, and called for the right of access to be strengthened, not restricted.

Indeed, one of that commission’s recommendations for strengthening the Act was to address the problem of obtaining information from contractors, which would also be addressed by my private Member’s Bill, the Freedom of Information (Extension) Bill, which is still before the House but is rapidly running out of time.

However good the legislation, in the 20 years since its passage, as it will be next year, we have fallen behind other countries and some of the limitations of the Act have been exhibited, which we probably now need to correct. I hope to hear from the Minister that we will attend to that. I am sure that my friend, the hon. Member for Edinburgh East, will tell us that things are done better in Scotland, but they are also done better in Brazil, Estonia, Macedonia, New Zealand, South Africa, Ireland and Hungary, some of which have incorporated some of the measures I propose. That is a rather eclectic group of countries.

It is right that there have been some changes to the Act, but they have been limited; a certain number of bodies that were perhaps in a grey area are now subject to the Act. The only ones that have been added since the Act’s passage are—I think this is an exhaustive list—the Financial Reporting Council, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service, the Financial Ombudsman Service, Network Rail and, most recently, the National Police Chiefs’ Council. It is inarguable that any of those bodies should have been within the ambit of the Act, but it took two years to designate the NPCC in that way. I will come on to this in more detail in a moment, but there are essentially two ways to expand the ambit of the Act: by adding bodies to the schedule or by incorporating different types of bodies, such as contractors, under the powers granted by section 5 of the Act. No use of those powers has been made at all, so far as I can see.

An enormous range of public services are now delivered by private companies, charities or not-for-profit agencies under contracts with public authorities, ranging from the running of prisons and immigration removal centres to the provision of meals on wheels, social care visits and parking services. The Information Commissioner estimated recently that more than £284 billion—a third of all Government spending—goes on the purchasing of public services. Some of the main recipients of that spending have become household names; some are perhaps better known than certain Government Departments, including Serco, G4S, Capita and the now infamous Carillion. Unfortunately, under FOI, those contractors are significantly less accountable to the public than the authorities that previously delivered the services directly.

Here the story becomes a little more complicated. The Freedom of Information Act applies not only to information held by a public authority, but to information held by someone else on an authority’s behalf. But when is information held on an authority’s behalf? The test applied by the Information Commissioner and, on appeal, the information rights tribunal, is whether the contract between the authority and the contractor empowers the authority to demand that information from the contractor. If it does, that information is considered to be held on the authority’s behalf, and is available, via an FOI request, to the authority. If it does not, the information is considered to be held for the contractor’s own purposes and is not subject to FOI.

The FOI requests that have been refused because the contract gave the authority no right to the information form a long list. That list includes a request for information on fire safety defects in the CT scanner room of a hospital that the NHS trust leased under a private finance initiative contract that did not give it the right to such information from the PFI body. When the request was made, the trust could not obtain the information, so neither could the requester. The list also includes a request for information on the number of complaints made against court security staff, and the number of those staff with criminal convictions. The staff were provided by G4S, and the Ministry of Justice’s contract did not entitle it to such information.

There was also a request for information on the number of prison staff at the privately run HMP Birmingham, and the number of attacks at the prison. Again, that information was held only by G4S and was not covered by the MOJ’s contract. A request for information on the value of penalty fares issued by London Overground and docklands light railway was also refused, as the information was held by private sector inspectors, as was a request on the cost of bringing TV licensing prosecutions, because the information was held by Capita and was not even known to the BBC.

I will add two examples that are close to home. Last Friday, I attended a demonstration outside Hammersmith Hospital in my constituency by porterage, cleaning and catering staff, who are on very poor terms and conditions and, in many cases, the minimum wage. They are all employed by Sodexo—another large multinational company—and I heard horrific stories of the conditions that people had to work under and what happened when people were sick. If they had been directly employed, I could have made inquiries to find out the truth of the matter about at least some of those terms and conditions, but I know there is no possibility of that. I could try to talk to Sodexo if it would talk to me; I could try to talk to the trust about the contract, but I would like to be able to get access to information of that kind. I have only praise for the workers, who provide an essential public service, and for the GMB union, which is representing them in the dispute. It is difficult to do that when one hand is tied behind your back.

The other example is from the neighbouring constituency of Kensington and relates to a tragedy with which we will all be very familiar—the Grenfell Tower fire. For some time, the Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation, which managed Grenfell Tower, refused FOI requests on the grounds that it was not itself a public authority. The Information Commissioner upheld such a refusal in 2012.

KCTMO latterly accepted that it held information on behalf of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and began to reply to requests, but in July 2017, after the fire, it refused another request, again on the grounds that it was not subject to the Act. That was in relation to a 2005 consultant’s report documenting the failure by KCTMO and one of its contractors to maintain the Grenfell Tower emergency lighting system. The extraordinary risk of allowing such information to be withheld from the public is obvious. We need to remove the uncertainty that led to that thoroughly unsatisfactory and dangerous situation.

It is common to find contracts containing some impressive-sounding clause such as: “The contractor undertakes to assist the authority in complying with its obligations under the Freedom of Information Act.” That sounds fine until we realise that the authority’s obligations are to deal with FOI requests for information that the contractor holds on its behalf. What information is held on the contractor’s behalf? Such clauses take us no further in establishing that.

One answer is to introduce into contracts an umbrella clause saying that all information relating to the performance or planned performance of the contract is held on the authority’s behalf for FOI purposes. All such information will then be accessible under the FOI Act or under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 via a request to the authority. That is what my private Member’s Bill would do. The Freedom of Information (Extension) Bill would insert into the FOI Act a new section 3A stipulating that all contracts entered into by public authorities for the provision of services are deemed to include such a disclosure clause. The clause would also apply to the contractor’s subcontracts. It would cover existing as well as future contracts.

The result would be that all information about the planned or actual performance of the contract would be subject to the FOI Act or, in the case of environmental information, to the parallel EIR. That does not mean that all such information would automatically be released. Disclosure would depend on whether exemptions applied—for example, for information whose disclosure would be harmful to the contractor’s or the authority’s commercial interests, or be a breach of confidence. I stress that the measure is not intended to guarantee disclosure of contractors’ information. Its aim is to ensure that the FOI process applies, so that information is disclosed unless there is good reason not to disclose. The advantage of that approach is that it would not require contractors and, in particular, small bodies with few staff to spend time learning how to deal with FOI requests. The request would be answered by the public authority.

The Freedom of Information Act itself contains a separate, but so far never used, mechanism for bringing contractors directly within its scope. Under section 5(l)(b), contractors can be designated as public authorities in their own right for FOI purposes and required to deal directly with requests. The procedure can be used only where the contract is for a service that it is the authority’s function to provide, which is not the case for all contracts. The Scottish Government have brought contractors that run prisons and their subcontractors under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 via such a mechanism. I regret that that has not been done under the UK Act as well.

There is substantial support for action to deal with contractors. In 2012, the Public Accounts Committee said that

“where private companies provide public services funded by the taxpayer, those areas of their business which are publicly funded should be subject to the Freedom of Information Act provision.”

In 2018, the Committee on Standards in Public Life urged the Government to consult on extension of the FOI Act to cover information held by public service contractors. The Burns commission, which I have mentioned, recommended, in relation to larger contractors, that

“information concerning the performance or delivery of public services under contract should be treated as being held on behalf of the contracting public authority. This would make such information available to requestors who make requests to the contracting public authority.”

Most importantly, this January the Information Commissioner, Elizabeth Denham, published her report entitled “Outsourcing Oversight? The case for reforming access to information law”, which calls for changes in the FOI Act similar to those proposed in my Bill. It is not the first time that the commissioner has indicated that that is what she wishes to see, but this weighty and authoritative report makes the case far more stringently than I can, with the resources available to me.

The report calls for, as one option, greater use of existing powers under section 5 of the FOI Act. It recommends—this is what I was explaining earlier—that the Government should:

“Designate contractors regarding the public functions they undertake where this would be in the public interest”.

It also recommends that they:

“Designate a greater number of other organisations exercising functions of a public nature, and do so more frequently and efficiently.”

The report states:

“Designation orders under section 5…would give the public the right to make requests directly to these organisations and require them to proactively disclose information in line with a publication scheme.”

The alternative would be to amend the primary legislation. Given the 20-year gap, that might be a more sensible course. It would allow for amendment of the environmental regulations as well.

The Government often plead lack of time for this, but given that there are at least three routes to reach the same objective, as I have explained, one of those must suit the Government’s purposes. As I have said, there has been no attempt at all to bring private contractors within the remit of the Act so far. There have been some additions—I read out the list earlier—to the schedule of bodies that are subject to the Act, but that has been, if not grudging, rather nugatory in its effect. Some of the leading contenders are not yet on the list, and perhaps the leading contender—this is the second part of the debate today—is housing associations.

Housing associations are not covered by freedom of information, although many of them have inherited local authority housing stock. This will be a matter close to your own heart, Mr Betts, given that you chair the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee. In some cases, the tenants, and therefore the public, have lost freedom of information rights that they previously enjoyed when those homes were under council control. I have examples of such estates in my constituency. The Grenfell fire has highlighted what I would say is the irresistible need for a right of access if only on safety grounds, yet when Inside Housing asked 61 housing associations for copies of their fire risk assessments in 2017, only seven provided them.

Let me give just a few more examples. A housing association tenant who asked for information about the cause of a fire in his premises in 2009 received no answer. A tenant who asked whether the water supply to his premises was provided through potentially toxic lead pipes received no answer. A tenant was refused a copy of an electricity bill, which led to his being charged £1,200 to cover the cost of six communal light bulbs. Another unsuccessfully asked for the make and model of estate street lighting that he found “overpowering” at night. He wanted the information in order to contact the manufacturer to see whether it could suggest a remedy, but he was refused. Requests for the number of repossession orders served since the bedroom tax came into force and the number of those tenants who had no arrears before that date were also refused.

Those are hardly state secrets; they would be available to any council tenant. It seems entirely anomalous and illogical that they are not available to other social landlords’ tenants as well. In 2011, the coalition Government announced that they would consult housing associations on bringing them under freedom of information. Regrettably, they failed to consult or act, and the current Government show no sign of doing so either.

I will refer briefly to the National Housing Federation. I ought not to have a go at the National Housing Federation, because it generally does a good job in representing its members. However, its arguments for not coming under the Freedom of Information Act, which it barely puts forward in its briefing, are thin. I think it knows in its heart of hearts that it should just give in gracefully, which actually would be to its advantage. The NHF’s arguments, whether commercial confidentiality, the ability to purchase land or the idea that housing associations might need to be reclassified as public bodies, are chimeras and fabulous tales. I believe that the legislation has been passed in Scotland and housing associations there will come under the equivalent Act later this year. There seems to have been no problem there.

As for commercial confidentiality, there are exemptions in the Act, which are there to be used. All institutions, including universities, have used the excuse of financial burden. Any public body or a quasi-public body of this kind will have expenses. It will have to do consultations, run democratic organisations and be subject to more regulations on the whole than individual private citizens. That is just a fact of life, and freedom of information is another fact of life along those same lines. There is no barrier to charities—universities are a good example—coming under the Freedom of Information Act. There is no reason why they will be reclassified as public bodies simply by coming under the Freedom of Information Act. I cannot even say “good try” to the NHF on this occasion. It cannot actually bring itself in the document to say what it wants us to do. It just leaves it there. I think another push might take it on to the side of the angels on this one, but we will see.

For completeness, in the Information Commissioner’s report and in my Bill there are some other anomalies that we ask the Government to address as a matter of simple logic. One such anomaly is electoral registration officers and returning officers. At one stage the Government agreed with us on that, so why it has not been done is a mystery. Local safeguarding children boards are another anomaly. They are not the subject of this debate and therefore I will not say a great deal more about them. However, it is an indication that, rather than being entirely resistant, having to be pushed every time and taking their time over it, it would be nice if the Government had a proper review and decided what would bring the Freedom of Information Act up to date in some of the ways that have been indicated.

To conclude, I believe that a consensus is growing. The Information Commissioner is doing an excellent job not only of clearing the backlog of complaints and administering the scheme, which was the primary function, but of championing the cause of freedom of information. Equally, Maurice Frankel and the Campaign for Freedom of Information, which was instrumental all those years ago in getting the Freedom of Information Act passed, are constantly scrutinising and pushing it in an exemplary way. I thank them in particular for their assistance with my Bill and with this debate.

There have been previous attempts at legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), the shadow Policing Minister, is ably ploughing the same furrow. There is even some support from the Government Benches. The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), after talking out my Bill, assured me that is was nothing personal; he was actually talking out another Bill at the time, and he commended my Bill and said he will fully support it next time there is an opportunity. What more rousing recommendation does one need than that? Not only my party, but the Scottish National party, the Liberal Democrats and the Green party support this measure. The Minister might begin to cotton on to the fact that she is in a small minority here, constantly being pushed in the right direction.

I will end by putting the following questions to the Minister. Given that the situation that I have outlined—in respect of contractors and the work that they do, and in respect of housing associations and other organisations—is exactly analogous to those public sector bodies that are fully subject to the Freedom of Information Act, so that there could be two institutions next to each other operating under completely separate regimes, this is not really a question of the Government making concessions, but simply a case of the Government correcting anomalies. Whether they do that through secondary legislation, by supporting my Bill or through primary legislation, the time has come for it to happen.

I hope the Minister is grateful for this opportunity to indicate where the Government’s thinking is on this matter, in respect of the individual examples that I have given and in respect of reviewing the Freedom of Information Act generally. I hope that there will be enough time for her to reply in detail.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Betts. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) on securing the debate and making an extraordinarily persuasive case, as he always does. It was so persuasive that, were the Minister not constrained by her place on the Government Front Bench, I am sure she would agree with it entirely.

This is not a new issue. I should declare at the outset that when I worked for the public services union Unison before coming to this place, it was already a matter of great concern to us. We could see the way the world was changing and the potential pitfalls that lay ahead. We were delighted that through our work with the Labour party, via our Labour link, we were able to secure a commitment from the then shadow Front Bench that freedom of information would indeed be extended to all public service providers.

The coalition Government at the time did not agree with that and sadly—2015 did not see the return of a Labour Government—this woefully out-of-date position persists. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith said, the Information Commissioner agrees. In the weighty report—we have all been carrying it around—entitled “Outsourcing Oversight? The case for reforming access to information law”, the commissioner makes a compelling case. The argument is essentially that the Freedom of Information Act should be extended to all public services, even when they are carried out by private companies.

I will say a bit more about the report and give some examples of where this creates problems in my constituency—I suspect that similar cases would be found across the country. The Information Commissioner recently came to Parliament to launch her report at an event, which I was very pleased to be on the panel for, organised by the parliamentary internet, communications and technology forum. Her team has done an excellent job of highlighting the problem, which is central to the issues that my hon. Friend has pointed out.

The key point is to understand how different the world now is from the world of the late 1990s, when the Freedom of Information Act was first introduced. Government now spend almost a third of our total expenditure with external suppliers—some £284 billion a year, which is an extraordinary amount of money. These external suppliers deliver services on behalf of public authorities. They are often private companies, charities and other not-for-profit organisations, which are not necessarily subject to freedom of information, thus massively diminishing the accountability of public service delivery.

As we have heard, the Information Commissioner uses the examples of the Grenfell Tower tragedy and the collapse of Carillion to show the consequences of a lack of transparency and accountability. They are both particularly awful examples. I have raised that concern with Ministers before. The answer was that extending the Freedom of Information Act would have made little difference, but I disagree. I think there is an essential problem with delivering public services in an opaque manner.

When councils run services, if we think they are doing a bad job, there is a simple solution: we vote them out—we get rid of them. That concentrates minds. Sadly, however good the service delivery may be through housing associations or public service contractors, or local charities providing social services and so on, when questions are asked it is much harder to know what to do about them. Extending the Freedom of Information Act hands that power of exposure and transparency back to citizens, and that ultimately is how to drive up standards. It reduces the risk of narrow or neglectful practices in the delivery of those services.

As constituency MPs—I am sure colleagues have the same experience—residents write to us about all manner of issues, some of which we have more control over resolving than others. In Cambridge, where the cost of living is extremely high, housing makes up a significant part of my postbag. For example, Montreal Square is a small area of housing—a delightful oasis of calm in the busy Romsey part of the city. Cambridge Housing Society, a local housing association, proposed to replace the 18 existing homes with 45 new, affordable, energy-efficient homes. Understandably perhaps, it wants to modernise existing homes on the site, and add more. Equally understandably, some of the residents who live there—some have been there for more than 35 years—are very unhappy about that fundamental change to their local community.

I pay tribute to Cambridge Housing Society and its chief executive, Nigel Howlett. It is an excellent organisation doing a great job, and Nigel is an outstanding leader in the sector. It is a charity that aims to provide the maximum amount of housing possible, but it also wants to take into account the concerns of the local community, so it is in a difficult position. It is trying to balance the needs of existing tenants against potential future tenants who do not have homes at the moment. That is a hard choice, but essentially it is a political one and, in my view, it should be taken by people who are democratically accountable. People come to me and ask, “Who makes the decision? What can be done about it?” If it was a council decision, the answer would be very clear.

Extending freedom of information to housing associations would not automatically solve the problem, but it would be a significant step forward. It would allow far greater accountability for residents and members of the wider community. It would give them a much stronger lever to question how decisions are being made and, most crucially, to get the information behind the decisions. I know that the Minister will say, “We are putting out more and more data.” It is not more data we want; it is the key data that they do not want to share that we want. That is what freedom of information gets to.

My hon. Friend already referred to the National Housing Federation’s briefing. I am delighted to say that there has been no collusion, but my reaction was exactly the same—my office colleague will testify to my reaction. The briefing states that extending freedom of information legislation could put

“not-for-profit providers at a disadvantage against commercial bodies in bidding for land...reducing housing associations’ ability to obtain private investment.”

As my hon. Friend so eloquently put it, those are fairly woeful excuses. The Information Commissioner has assured me that the Freedom of Information Act already has mechanisms in place to deal with such issues. It is a flimsy set of arguments, frankly. I certainly want to find ways of helping housing associations in their battle against developers for land, but diminishing public accountability is the wrong way to go about it. It would be much better to address the very real problem of secrecy in the commercial land market. It should not be forgotten, of course, that huge amounts of public money goes through housing associations, and has done so in the past, to provide essential homes for people. We must protect the democratic accountability of our public services.

I have two further examples in other sectors, which show how freedom of information can make a difference. Across the country, and in Cambridge and Cambridgeshire, we have seen mass academisation of schools, which is often unpopular. Parents, children and local communities feel very strongly about this issue. In my city there is currently a proposal for a merger of a local multi-academy trust with a large national one, which has caused some upset among my constituents, who are concerned—rightly, in my view—about the potential consequences.

Both academies and multi-academy trusts are subject to FOI, but the position is far from clear. Academies were brought under the FOI Act in 2010 and have to answer FOI requests. With multi-academy trusts, the situation is a little more complex. I sought advice from the Information Commissioner’s Office, which told me:

“MATs will be covered by the FOI Act (and are ultimately responsible for the FOI obligations of all the academies)”,

but

“the information requested must be held ‘for the purposes of the proprietor’s functions under Academy arrangements’. It’s very likely that the information held will fall into the purposes specified”.

However, it is not hard to imagine that if a multi-academy trust wanted to, it could use the FOI exemption for information that is a trade secret or

“would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of any person or body”

in some of those cases. Where questions have been asked locally regarding the merging of academy trusts, I have been assured by the MAT in question that it is releasing as much information as it is permitted to through the current FOI regime. I commend them for that, but it is easy to see that less scrupulous trusts may not always choose that course of action.

This is not simply about the facts of legislation; it is also about how it feels to the public, and the need for communities to feel that they have genuine ownership over the services that their taxes fund. After all, whose schools are they? I think they are our schools, but all too often it does not really feel like that. Extending the Freedom of Information Act in the way suggested might help a little, although I would argue that a much more substantial overhaul is needed.

This is not my first foray into arguing with the Cabinet Office about extending the Freedom of Information Act. I have an excellent exam board in my constituency, Cambridge Assessment, which is a major local employer. As Cambridge Assessment is a department of the University of Cambridge, it is subject to freedom of information requests. Other exam boards are not. That issue was first raised with me, astonishingly, as long ago as 2010, at a public hustings event hosted by Cambridge Assessment and chaired by the inestimable Simon Lebus, then chief executive. He challenged each candidate to declare whether they would pursue the issue and help him resolve it before his retirement, which at that point he thought was still some way off. As happens at public hustings events, we all pledged to pursue it. Little did we know that it would be quicker to build the fantastic new buildings that those visiting Cambridge see on the railway line—a huge set of buildings—than to get the Cabinet Office to move on this question. The skewed playing field for exam boards does a major disservice to Cambridge Assessment, because it is treated differently from its competitors. It argues that the Act should be extended to all exam boards because they use public money to perform a public service.

The Minister has been good enough to sit down with me and her officials on a number of occasions on this issue, a while ago. The letter I received from her this week was profoundly disappointing. She told me that she had had discussions with the relevant Education Minister, with the conclusion that although

“the Minister of State agreed in principle that there are other awarding organisations that carry out functions of a public nature”,

because

“the Department for Education has undertaken significant reforms of A Levels and GCSEs, which has placed significant additional burdens on awarding organisations, the Government is currently not in a position to being another process of consultation and possible legislative change”.

That is a dreadful argument, even by this Government’s miserable standards—I am cross about this. They have made some woefully unpopular and regressive education policy changes, and they are using that as an excuse for not being prepared to make some that might actually improve the accountability and transparency of the way we educate our young people.

[Andy Slaughter]

My hon. Friend has a long track record of campaigning on FOI—far longer than mine—and I am grateful that he is here for the debate. Does he agree that the decision to move freedom of information to the Cabinet Office—I do not mean this to reflect on the current Minister—was a mistake? It has been put in with data protection, which is often about restricting access to information, for the right reasons. In the Ministry of Justice, and with the Justice Committee, there was a far more robust approach to calling out the Government’s questions. A reassignment of Department and Committee might be a suitable step.

[Daniel Zeichner]

My hon. Friend is far more of an expert than I am on the matter. He has made an interesting observation that might be worth pursuing further. He may well have a very strong point there.

To return to my quest that is now nine years on. In fact, it is probably more than nine years, because I know that my predecessors, Julian Huppert and David Howarth, pursued the matter. I fear it might go back as far as Anne Campbell’s time. As I have said, I made a pledge to Simon Lebus that we would try to resolve the issue before his retirement. Sadly, it has not been achieved. I fear it might have to wait for a Labour Government, which I am sure will be along soon.

Freedom of information is sometimes considered a slightly nerdy issue—no apologies to colleagues present—but it is an incredibly important mechanism to secure proper accountability and democratic oversight. It is disappointing that we have not yet had a proper Government response to the Information Commissioner’s report, although, to be fair to the Minister, she has said that they are considering it carefully and will respond in due course, which of course is wonderful civil service speak. We will await events. We cannot let private companies get away with always doing their dealings out of the public eye when their decisions have a serious impact on the lives of all our constituents. We need the tools to provide the checks and balances. Too often it seems to be a carry-on behind closed doors and it cannot continue.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts, and I thank you for that reminder. I thank the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) for his points. I know that his thoughtful presentation follows on from the work on his private Member’s Bill. I also thank the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner). As he noted, we have looked in some detail at an issue regarding one particular examination board, but if he will forgive me, this afternoon I will focus on responding to the more general points that have been raised.

Freedom of information is, of course, one of the pillars on which open government operates. The Government are committed to supporting the effective operation of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. That Act has been in operation for more than 10 years. It received post-legislative scrutiny by the Justice Committee in 2012, and it was reviewed by the Independent Commission on Freedom of Information in 2016. One of the key questions raised by the hon. Member for Hammersmith is whether the time is right for an overall review of the Act, and I point him towards that work from 2016. It considered whether the Act still ensures an appropriate balance between transparency and the need for a private space—for example for advice and discussion—as well as whether the costs of freedom of information are proportionate to its many benefits.

The Government welcomed the commission’s focus on enhancing transparency, which went a little wider than just the 2000 Act. The Information Commissioner’s Office has added an important piece of research to the scrutiny of that Act with its recent report, and I am grateful to the commission and the commissioner for their work on a significant and complex matter. I will respond to that report shortly—I am sure hon. Members look forward to having that response on their bedside tables, just as they did the report itself.

As the Information Commissioner identified in her report, since the passage of the Freedom of Information Act, the UK has been at the forefront of opening up data to allow the public and press to hold public bodies to account. The Government are among the most open and transparent in the world and remain committed to the principles of transparency and openness. We launched updated transparency principles in 2017 and it is a fact that we are publishing more data than ever. We will continue to support the effective operation of the Act as part of that.

On the question of how housing associations ought to be dealt with, we fully share the view that landlords, including housing associations, should be accountable and transparent in their dealings with tenants, and should be responsive to their needs. I am not necessarily persuaded, however, that the extension of FOI to housing associations is the sole best means of achieving that. As landlords, housing associations are private sector bodies that deliver a social benefit, rather than exercising

“functions of a public nature”

or providing public functions under contract on behalf of a public authority, as the Act says. It is important to maintain that distinction; I do not think the analogy is as simple as the second key question of the hon. Member for Hammersmith suggests.

If any Government were deemed to exercise too much control over private bodies, there would be a significant risk that they could be classified as public sector bodies. That would mean that, in this case, their private debt of about £70 billion would be added to the Government’s debt burden—the public’s debt burden. Housing associations would also be subject to public sector borrowing constraints, which would limit their ability to finance the development of new social and affordable homes. I note that housing associations deliver 93% of all new affordable homes, so it is not a small matter.

In terms of accountability, the vast majority of housing associations are voluntarily registered with the regulator of social housing and if they seek public funding, they must be registered and subject to that regime. That means that they have a duty to comply with the standards set by that regulator, including making information available to tenants about the running of the organisation. The key point is that last summer, the Government announced a review of social housing regulation that will look at how transparency and accountability for tenants can be further improved, including better access to landlord information.

As with every hon. Member, I add to the record my sympathy and personal anguish at the tragedy at Grenfell Tower. As the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) acknowledged, the inquiry is looking at some of the issues, including communications with residents, which specifically covers whether there was a formal system for recording concerns, what concerns were raised at the time or after the recent renovations, how and to whom any such concerns were expressed, and what was done in response.

[Andy Slaughter]

I gently say to the Minister that there are two weaknesses in her argument. First, disclosing information voluntarily, however laudable the aim or honestly done, is not the same as giving citizens the power to interrogate an organisation. Secondly, if the Minister is right—I think it was the policy of a previous Conservative Government to put the onus on housing associations, rather than councils, to deliver the lion’s share of social housing—and they are standing in the shoes of councils, there is all the more reason for them to be accountable in that way. If Scotland and other charities can do it, why does the Minister appear to envisage the risk of a housing association suddenly being classed as a public body, just because it is subject to FOI?

[Chloe Smith]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for those points and for the way he has put his arguments. I am simply saying that such issues should be considered through the review.

I am also grateful for the points added by the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard), to whom I wish a happy birthday. I add two points in relation to the situation in Scotland. First, we are looking to see the record that will develop there. As I understand it, the provisions have not yet come into force, so we will look at how effective they are in increasing transparency. Secondly, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh East mentioned, the Scottish Government laid the planning for the consultation on these matters in 2016 and began it in 2017, so it is not a short process. I would like to think that all hon. Members present recognise that the provisions of the 2000 Act mean that such things are not necessarily quick, simple or short. I will come on a little later to how the Act may be used to extend the scope, if desired.

On contractors—the other half of the case made by the hon. Member for Hammersmith—I remind hon. Members of the arguments made by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office last year about why we as a Government use outsourcing. I say “we”, but successive Governments have used it. I will use his arguments as context in response to the contextual points that have been made today. As the hon. Member for City of Chester said, we may have philosophical differences, but this is why one would look at outsourcing as a benefit to the public.

As the Minister for the Cabinet Office said,

“you can have both good and bad in both the private and the public sectors”,

as we all know from what we get in our constituency mailbags every week. He continued to say that

“what matters is that the service works for the people who use it in their everyday needs”

and that it provides

“value for money for the taxpayer.”

It is the case that

“the private sector has a vital role to play in delivering public services,”

and the Government continue to support that position, as have successive Governments since at least the 1980s, as I said.

As my right hon. Friend said, outsourcing can deliver “economies of scale” that can mean greatly better value and lower costs for the taxpayer. It is also the case that

“open and fair competition…encourages creativity and innovation”

that simply would not otherwise come about. Again, that benefits the user of that public service. The private sector can also bring

“a range of specialist skills, world-class expertise and deeper knowledge to bear on what can be complex issues.”

His argument is really that the Government

“cannot do everything by itself”,

and should not, because

“It needs the…innovation that only a…marketplace of suppliers can provide.”

In another speech last year on the subject, my right hon. Friend made the argument that small businesses and the third sector have a great appetite for taking part in providing those public services, and for a good reason. In many ways, they are often “closest to our communities” and are

“in the best…position to deliver social value”

through those contracts. That is an important further argument to think about when we look at outsourcing.

Because the Government remain committed to supporting that position, we are sceptical about the introduction of additional reporting burdens on those small organisations. We think that it would weaken the resilience of the delivery for the taxpayer, reduce the value for money that the Government can deliver for the taxpayer, and affect the support that the Government can give indirectly to those jobs when we use such suppliers.

In respect of contractors, the Government have certainly considered how best to balance the competing interests of transparency and burdens. As I have said, we recognise the importance of transparency in how public money is spent, but we are concerned about a disproportionate burden, because we do not want to discourage smaller organisations from serving the public.

[Andy Slaughter]

I am listening to the Minister’s argument, but again, I thought I had dealt with that point in my speech. The majority of inquiries will be about the major contractors that take the lion’s share. I entirely take her point about small contractors, but my Bill would put the onus and the responsibility for the cost on the public authority to do that, so there is a way round it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter]

I am grateful to all those who have attended and taken part in this debate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) used some very good examples from his constituency, but he also exhibited his encyclopaedic knowledge of this subject and his long track record of pushing for freedom of information. I think that he and I feel that we may be getting somewhere at last.

I also thank the shadow Housing Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), for attending the first part of the debate. He did not speak because of his elevated status, but I know he has a particular interest in housing association issues and particularly the issues around Grenfell. I am grateful to him for his support.

I also thank the two Opposition Front-Bench spokespersons, my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard, for their comments and associate myself with them.

The Minister, in her usual gracious way, put the Government’s argument as best she could, but it is wearing a little thin on these issues, as she conceded when saying, in response to my request for a fuller review, that there was the Burns commission. She quoted the matters relating to private contractors’ rights, but on the whole the Burns commission was sympathetic to the points that we are putting forward today. I hope that, when the response to the Information Commissioner’s report comes through, we may at last see some movement.

I remain hopeful, as always. I have noticed that there have been three private Members’ Bills in the past two years that would not perhaps have been expected to receive Government support: the Homelessness Reduction Act 2018; the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, which was put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck); and the equal civil partnerships Bill, which I believe is shortly to be enacted, once it has completed its stages in the House. Indeed, there are more recent examples of the Government taking over the Bills on upskirting and female genital mutilation. I am sure that that must be happening in so many cases because of the Government’s generosity and not because of their lack of a majority.

I therefore remain hopeful that—perhaps not in this Session and perhaps not even in the form of a Bill sponsored by me—a Bill of the kind that I have brought forward to extend freedom of information in the way that I have indicated will be achieved, and in the very near future.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered extending the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to housing associations and public contractors.

No Confidence in Her Majesty’s Government

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Wednesday 16th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The provocation for this debate was the unprecedented defeat of the central plank of the Government’s policy, which should have led seamlessly to a general election. In the Brexit debate earlier this week, I spoke about the threat that Brexit posed to the prosperity, opportunities and security of my constituents and many of my businesses, but I also represent some of the poorest communities in the UK, and although I am proud of the work it does, I am not proud to have the busiest food bank in London.

Last week, I spent an afternoon at one of St Mungo’s homeless hostels in West Kensington talking to residents and staff. They told me that the annual street homelessness count, to be published on 31 January, would show it had doubled in the last year, and they gave me three reasons: universal credit, the increase in no recourse to public funds and tenancy takeover, which is where drug dealers seize the premises of vulnerable tenants. The war on the poor, the hostile environment and a descent into lawlessness are three of the worst consequences of austerity.

The cuts in police numbers, especially neighbourhood officer numbers, is putting whole communities at risk. I spent part of new year’s eve at a crime scene in Fulham. An attempted murder led to the arrest of 40 people and the recovery of a number of dangerous weapons. I estimate that half the people I now see in my surgery have problems that would have made them eligible for legal aid before the passage of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.

Yesterday, my clinical commissioning group, looking to make £44 million of cuts to its budget, began consulting on reducing opening hours for urgent care centres and GPs. That is not just bad in itself but in direct contradiction to the NHS strategy that calls for an extension of those services to justify the closures of A&Es and emergency beds. For the first time in a generation, we are seeing year-on-year real-terms cuts to school budgets. Inner-city schools do not just educate but give emotional and practical support to families struggling with poverty and poor living standards.

Perhaps the Government’s worst betrayal is the 80% cut—100% under the former London Mayor—to funding for social housing when 800,000 people are on waiting lists. My local council and the Mayor of London are doing the best they can to alleviate the conditions I have described, but for real change we need a Labour Government. The Prime Minister’s legacy will be to have ruined this country in half the time it took the Thatcher and Major Governments. Enough is enough. We need a general election and a Labour Government.