Housing Associations and Public Contractors: Freedom of Information

Debate between Chloe Smith and Andy Slaughter

Wednesday 6th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[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.

Voter ID Pilots

Debate between Chloe Smith and Andy Slaughter

Monday 23rd April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chloe Smith]

The Electoral Commission has been calling for this change since 2014. The Government are responding to that call for change by introducing policies that ask voters to produce a proportionate and reasonable form of identification, such as they would do for other routine activities in daily life. We think that is the right thing to do and we are pleased to be able to work alongside the Electoral Commission and Crimestoppers, as I mentioned, to combat electoral fraud.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

We have a very robust electoral system in this country, and the Minister is insulting highly competent electoral registration officers by purporting to solve a problem that does not exist. The 38% turnout in the last local elections in Hammersmith ranged from 13% in deprived areas to 50% in prosperous areas. Why does she not do something to increase turnout, especially in deprived areas, rather than trying to suppress it?

[Chloe Smith]

This policy is in no way about suppressing votes. It is a huge shame that any voters listening to this debate today will hear one side of the House talking their prospects down and saying that they are somehow unable to produce the kind of ID that we routinely produce in everyday life. The five co-operating local authorities have come forward to run the pilots because they can best serve their citizens by doing so and providing alternative arrangements.

Infected Blood Inquiry

Debate between Chloe Smith and Andy Slaughter

Thursday 29th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chloe Smith]

The inquiry will specifically be about the cause and conduct in respect of the problem as is it has unfolded over the years. As my hon. Friend and the House will be aware, other present-day policy questions arise as to what is available to the victims of this scandal. I know that my colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care will have listened to what he has said today and will be keen to continue to provide that assurance to the House also.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The Minister will realise that those affected by the contaminated blood scandal have very low levels of trust in the Government and other authorities, not least because they have been literally short-changed over so many years. Today’s announcement is good, but will the Minister say whether the Government will make funds available going forward, particularly to fulfil any recommendations made by the inquiry?

Contaminated Blood Inquiry

Debate between Chloe Smith and Andy Slaughter

Monday 29th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chloe Smith]

Mr Speaker, I do not think we will need to trouble either you or hon. Members for another urgent question. I do expect us to be able to return promptly to the House with an update—the update that the House rightly asks for and our constituents and the victims of this scandal rightly require. We are working hard and fast so that victims come first and can be served by a judge as quickly as possible.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

With respect, the Minister has said nothing to advance this matter today. I have been supporting affected constituents with declining health for eight years, which sounds like a long time but is a fraction of the time that victims have waited for justice. Does she now regret the four-month delay in moving the inquiry from the then Department of Health to the Cabinet Office, which my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) asked for last July?

[Chloe Smith]

I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman’s tone is helpful. I have endeavoured to answer every question as constructively as I possibly can. I think I have made clear my personal commitment, as well as the Government’s, to ensuring that the matter is brought to a conclusion as quickly as possible for the benefit of the victims, for whom every hon. Member present wishes to speak. The Government have listened and responded by making the inquiry judge-led, which is the right thing to do. They have listened and responded by removing responsibility for the inquiry from the Department of Health and giving it to the Cabinet Office. It has been important to take what little time has been needed to get that right, so that we can have a better inquiry that better responds to what victims have been asking for.

Pay and Consultants (Public Sector)

Debate between Chloe Smith and Andy Slaughter

Tuesday 13th March 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Slaughter]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Our constituencies share the world-renowned Imperial health care trust. When I was first introduced to the new chief executive, I assumed that he was just that—a paid chief executive. It was only when I read the articles in The Sunday Times that I understood that he was being paid £2,000 a day as a consultant. I do not know whether it was always the intention to regularise his position or whether it was The Sunday Times and perhaps my hon. Friend who acted as a prompt. I am, however, pleased that the chief executive, Mark Davies, applied for the job and has now been appointed to the full-time position. If that is a precedent in removing such anomalies and abuses, I hope that it will be followed.

Going back to the point made by the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert), I do not object at all to the review. However, as he will have seen, the issue goes wider than Departments and non-departmental public bodies. It is my understanding—the Minister may want to correct me when she responds or even now—that that is the limit of the review at the moment. Even in the statement on 2 February, my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell) asked about local government—a topic to which I will return—and the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) asked about the BBC. Will the Minister update us on whether the terms of reference of the review have been extended to cover those areas, what progress has been made so far and when will we see a report?

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Chloe Smith)]

To assist the debate in its early stage, I am happy to confirm that the review extends to all bodies that are covered by Her Majesty’s Treasury’s guidance on managing public money, with which Members will be familiar. That includes all central Government bodies, such as Departments and their arm’s length bodies. On the subject of the BBC, I can confirm that the review will not cover arrangements in public corporations, public broadcasting authorities or the publicly owned banks. I hope that that information is of assistance.

[Mr Slaughter]

That is disappointing. I wish that both local government and councillors were covered. The leader of Kensington and Chelsea is paid a six-figure salary. The days of councillors being volunteers or being paid small amounts have gone. The review should also cover health trusts, non-executive directors of health trusts, the whole panoply of organisations that surround the public sector bodies, the Local Government Association and the Local Government Improvement and Development board, because those are the organisations in which abuses are likely to take place. We are talking about bodies that recruit people who have retired from the public sector and who, because of restrictions on their earnings thereafter—such earnings affect pension rights—will be prone to adopt these devices to avoid being classed as employees.

The figures for high pay in the public sector speak for themselves. The Chief Secretary conceded that he had cognisance of more than 180 civil servants on packages in excess of £142,500. I commend the work of the TaxPayers Alliance—I have been doing that quite often recently—in publishing the “Town Hall Rich List”, which shows that the highest paid chief executives, who are, I think, in Wandsworth, are on around £350,000 a year. That list of shame, which is regularly updated and published, is a great public service.

Let me just say, though, that as someone who has spent 20 years in local government, I have worked with some very fine public servants who did not do the job primarily for money. I even had a chief executive who capped his own salary, which is not something that we see much of at the moment. However, I have also had the unedifying experience of seeing the last chief executive of Hammersmith and Fulham, which is one of the smallest unitary local authorities in the country, retire on a salary of £281,000 a year. That salary had been increased by £11,000 in the last year of service—the salaries of everyone else in the organisation had been frozen—in order, I suspect, to enable him to retire on the maximum pension. The authority would not divulge the details of that pension but the House of Commons Library calculated that it would be substantially in excess of £100,000 a year. In addition, he received a lump sum payment of a sum much larger than £250,000 a year. To my mind, that is not where local government should be.

I will return to the issue of consultants. I say again that I am grateful to a number of organisations for their help, particularly the PCS union, which takes an interest in this subject.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Smith]

I had better write to the hon. Lady, not being able to cover that matter under the terms of today’s debate.

The review is due to report to the Chief Secretary by the end of March, so hon. Members will understand that I cannot comment further at this time.

Local government is outside of the scope of the review, although I hear the points made by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), including his wish for the review to go wider. He will know that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has written to the Local Government Association to urge it to consider similar action.

It is right that light should be shone upon practices in the local government sector as well, although central Government do not control pay in local government: it remains, rightly, a matter for local authorities. We have taken several steps to bring greater local accountability and transparency to pay in local government, which I think local taxpayers welcome strongly. They now have the tools and information needed to hold their councils and elected councillors to account, through the Localism Act 2011.

[Mr Slaughter]

I hear what the Minister is saying and I look forward to the review, but will she at least hold open the prospect of widening its ambit, because what she has just said is not correct? In my experience, in my local authority, the audit committee is not meeting—it is being made inquorate by the majority party—and documents are being refused, not only to me but to the leader of the opposition, who has particular rights in law to get such documentation. If councils are going to abuse the position of trust, surely the Government and HMRC must act in this matter.

[Miss Smith]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman feels that the council was better off his watch, when it was 363rd in respect of value for money out of 387 local authorities.

Let me provide one example of ways in which local authorities are now more transparent. I have no doubt that the good citizens of Hammersmith enjoy holding the pay practices of the council to account through measures under the 2011 Act. They can do that because local authorities are obliged to publish their pay policy statements by the end of March.

On the responsibilities that I am drawing attention to, the Government believe that there should be public accountability in this regard, not only for employees but for elected councillors. The responsibility for meeting the transparency that we all demand of the public sector rests not only with locally elected councillors through some of the measures in the 2011 Act, but with citizens who are now empowered to understand more about the choices that their councils take.

It is right that, as we call time on a decade of ever-increasing centralisation, targets, levers and poor value for money, greater localism must come with greater transparency and accountability. Opening up the pay deals of top town hall jobs to public scrutiny will mean that taxpayers know with certainty that their interests are being protected, complementing measures taken by central Government to control and cut consultancy spending under their areas of responsibility, while also freezing and tackling excessive pay elsewhere in the sector.

Air Passenger Duty

Debate between Chloe Smith and Andy Slaughter

Thursday 20th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Chloe Smith)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) on securing this debate and thank him for his response to the air passenger duty consultation earlier this year.

I will address the content of my hon. Friend’s speech and some of the specific points raised by hon. Members in a moment. First, let me say as the new Minister responsible for APD that not only did it fall on my desk with a thump in my first week, but the main challenge is to get the policy right for the long-term benefit of passengers, the industry, the economy and those who have responded to the consultation. I very much agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the aviation sector. That goes without saying for all of us here in the debate. It employs substantial numbers of people—my hon. Friend’s constituents and others—directly or indirectly in the UK and is among the most productive sectors of the economy. I recognise that aviation is also an enabler and a catalyst for many businesses in the UK. The hon. Members for Belfast East (Naomi Long) and for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) pointed out the vital need for joined-up government so that we can get taxation and regulation functioning sensibly together and contributing to growth in the economy.

Let us be very clear: we all want UK aviation, and sectors such as the travel industry that rely on aviation, to succeed. That was the starting point for the APD consultation launched at Budget. It is why my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening), spent a lot of time over the past year talking and listening to airports, airlines and various organisations, including those overseas, to understand their concerns, and I hope to do the same. I note that she will be spending more time on transport issues than she might have anticipated only a few days ago. It is because we understand the pressures facing consumers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley has outlined very capably, that the Chancellor froze APD in the Budget in March.

Despite that, some people have called for a cut in APD. We must be frank about the situation in which we find ourselves, as my hon. Friend has said. When we came to office last year, we inherited a fiscal deficit of historic proportions, and action has been necessary to try to steady the ship, if you will forgive another transport pun, Mr Deputy Speaker. If we are to put the economy back on the path to sustainable growth, it is imperative that we tackle the deficit and that we take contributions from all parts of society. Unfortunately, I cannot promise the House that APD will be cut in the near future. I know that many hon. Members are concerned about other aspects of APD, including the changes that the previous Government made to the structure of APD in 2009. My hon. Friend has referred to some of those changes and their impact on our Commonwealth partners.

Many stakeholders have complained about the previous Government’s changes to the banding structure of APD. Some have pointed to the anomalies created by that structure, including my hon. Friend, and we have received a number of representations from those who feel that flights to Caribbean destinations are unfairly penalised. Following in my predecessor’s footsteps, I will hold a series of meetings with stakeholders on that subject.

[Mr Slaughter]

I congratulate the Minister on her appointment, although she has been handed a bit of a poisoned chalice.

My constituents who travel regularly to the Caribbean are concerned about the anomaly. Before the election, the hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening), who was then shadow Economic Secretary, often posed in photographs with Ministers from the Caribbean and gave assurances about those anomalies. We understand that many other assurances will not be kept, including on the move to per-plane duty. Will the Minister at least give us the comfort that the Caribbean anomaly, if I can put it that way, will be addressed, whatever the Government propose?

[Miss Smith]

I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that I shall carry on meeting representatives from the Caribbean and, indeed, from Australia and New Zealand very shortly, to discuss those concerns. I am afraid, however, for reasons I shall come on to, that it is rather difficult at this precise moment to give him further assurances, because the Government are due to respond to the consultation. I shall shortly deal with the detail of that, and with his points about per-plane duty.

The good news is that the consultation enabled Ministers to go into all those issues in more detail. The hon. Gentleman will know that in the Budget, the Chancellor announced that, for the first time, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley described, APD would be extended to passengers flying aboard business jets, which is another important feature that we have made clear. That addresses a clear unfairness in the system, and the consultation invited views on how that should be addressed.

I cannot promise the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) or anyone else that we will meet everyone’s wishes, but we will try to deliver an APD system that is fairer, simpler and more efficient, and the Chancellor will set out those details in due course. On the hon. Gentleman’s point about per-plane duty, to make the position clear, the UK’s international obligations in that area include air service agreements with more than 150 countries, including the 1944 Chicago convention. We will not introduce per-plane duty at present because of concerns about legality and feasibility. We will, however, work with international partners to continue building consensus.