Finances of the House of Commons

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I would like to add my name to that tribute to the Member with the most poetically named constituency, let me put it that way— the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso)—who has worked tirelessly on behalf of all of us and all the staff. I would also like to join the right hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to all the staff who service this House.

I want to raise an issue that I have raised with the right hon. Gentleman before—specifically about the security staff. There are about 300 of them who service this House and provide us with excellent security services overall. Appendix 1 to the Finance and Services Committee report refers to the policy context, stating:

“There are a number of significant policy matters and events on the horizon that may have a bearing on the budget.”

Included in that list is the

“Renewal of the security arrangements in 2015”.

About 250 of these 300 security staff are members of the trade union, PCS, and I chair the PCS parliamentary group—a cross-party group that takes an interest in the policies of the union, with a particular interest in the staff who work here.

The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross will know the history. The contract expires at the end of March next year, so its future will need to be decided. There were discussions about whether the Metropolitan police would be allocated that contract and indeed about whether they were interested in having it renewed. There was a proposal to give the work on the House’s three main entrances to a private company. I met Mr Paul Martin to discuss that matter, and I found him to be nothing but helpful when he informed us as much as he could about the options available to him. My understanding, as far as can be discerned, is that the Met is not keen on continuing the contract, so the options are privatisation, part-privatisation or bringing the staff in-house. The staff very clearly want to be brought in-house.

Prior to or during the summer it was argued that it would be impractical to split the security arrangements so that the three gates were given to a private company, with the rest of the security arrangements being handled by other staff employed either by the Met directly or by another company. Even the Met argued that we need a fully integrated service rather than have it divided in this way. I share that view. When will a decision about this matter be made? Is it forthcoming? The staff want to know what their futures will be and they favour maximum security. As I say, if the Met is not going to continue the contract, they want to be brought in-house. If there are concerns about rushing to a decision, there is also the option of extending the existing contract for a number of years.

My personal view is that I would be very worried and anxious about bringing in a private company to operate this contract, certainly if the work were to be divided up in that way. The last thing I want, frankly, is G4S or something like it to be responsible for security here, particularly during a period of heightened security risk, as we have all acknowledged, and particularly as we move towards a general election that, to say the least, will see significant changes taking place in the political climate.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I presume that when the hon. Gentleman refers to security, he is not implying that outside contractors would be armed. We would still require the Metropolitan police to have an armed facility beside them. I presume he is not suggesting that we could sub-contract that aspect.

[John McDonnell]

The proposal was for the privatisation of the three main entrances and all the security aspects of running them—basically, the search facility. I think that the Met had come to the conclusion themselves that disaggregating the security service in that way would make it very difficult to manage the whole arrangements. Where we have seen those sorts of disaggregations of security services, we have seen breakdowns in communication, leading to reduced security, putting people at risk. In a heightened period of security—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman was talking specifically about one section of those who were in the House to help facilitate it. He was answering an intervention, but I remind all hon. Members that we do not discuss security issues on the Floor of the House. The hon. Gentleman started out in order, but was tempted down a more complex route about the security of the House. I know that he wants to return to his substantive point.

[John McDonnell]

It is very easy to be tempted in the House, especially by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). Let me return to the point. It is important for a decision to be made now so that staff can know what their futures will be. I suggest that the Committee should ensure that the security arrangements remain with the Metropolitan police unless they do not wish that, in which case staff should be employed in-house. That would enable us to maximise the security arrangements of the House during the coming potentially difficult period.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Thurso]

I am most grateful to all Members who have taken part in the debate. It has been quite wide-ranging and had its light-hearted moments, but it has also been very serious, and I think that it does us credit to have discussed our affairs in that way. I will attempt to answer the questions that have been put directly to me, but if for any reason I miss one, I will certainly write to the hon. Member concerned.

The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) asked about security. I have in my brief, in huge, red, block capitals, the words, “You’re not allowed to talk about security in the Chamber”, so I will not. However, I will say that obviously our security is of paramount importance, and so too is value for money. I observe that many places similar to ours get that best security and best value from an in-House security force. I have no idea what the House might do, but I am sure that it will be based on the best evidence externally.

[John McDonnell]

I do not want to tempt the hon. Gentleman any further, but can he indicate what the time scale is for decision making on that?

[John Thurso]

Proposals on the principles of the way forward, rather than the detail, have been received and will be put to the Commission and the House Committee of the Lords at their next meetings. If the proposals are agreed to in principle, the detailed work will take place, but I would not anticipate any particular changes until well into next year. I hope that answer is sufficient for the hon. Gentleman. The director of security would probably give him a fuller briefing, if he would like to take him up on that.

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) for his full account of the work of the Administration Committee. One of the features of this Parliament has been the Administration Committee and the Finance and Services Committee finding a very good way of working together, with the Administration Committee taking the lead on the services and the Finance and Services Committee taking the lead on the financial implications of that. I am most grateful for his contribution.

The shadow Deputy Leader of the House, or deputy shadow Leader of the House—I am not sure which way around it is—the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty), asked a number of substantial questions. The first was where I got the figure of £2.7 million from. The answer is page 10 of the report, which states:

“In the current financial year, at an equivalent point in the electoral cycle, it is forecast to be £2.7 million.”

However, he is absolutely right to ask, as always, because the update is that the like-for-like total net cost for catering services was £1.2 million in the first six months of 2014-15, against £2.25 million in the equivalent period of 2013-14, a reduction of £1.5 million, or 47%. Certainly, that being £360,000 better than budget, it is to be hoped that that will be carried through to the end of the year. I hope that is a reasonable answer. I will write to him about the first question he asked during my speech, but I direct him to annex D on page 32 in relation to the costs of restoration and renewal.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned charities. I absolutely agree that charities should not be penalised. That is part of the policies that have been adopted, and I see no chance of their being changed.

With regard to raising funds from those who come to watch us in this Chamber, there has never been any suggestion, ever, that money be paid by our constituents and the public to view the legislative process, Select Committee hearings, or any other part of our work—and nor should there be. There is a very distinct difference between people coming as members of the public to engage with the political process and those who come as tourists and pay for the privilege. The two are absolutely not linked.