Carillion and Public Sector Outsourcing

Jon Trickett Excerpts

Wednesday 24th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that the assessments of risks of Government Strategic Suppliers by Her Majesty's Ministers referred to in the Answer of 19 December 2017 to Question 114546 and any improvement plans which Crown Representatives have agreed with such strategic suppliers since 2014 be provided to the Public Accounts Committee.

Thank you for calling me to speak, Mr Deputy Speaker. My thoughts, and I am sure those of everyone in the House, have been with you during this very difficult time for you and your family.

Time is running on, and I am going to attempt to be brisk, but I am not going to be non-partisan, because the Government have been negligent in the exercise of their duty to protect the public purse. In the past two hours, the Government have attempted to pre-empt this whole debate by sending a letter to every one of us. The purpose of the letter is to attempt to whitewash the way in which the Government have conducted outsourcing, particularly in relation to Carillion. Those who have had the chance to study the letter will find the names of six companies that are going to take over the public sector contracts that Carillion was administering. I have only just had a chance to look at it myself, but that list is quite extraordinary. What a catalogue of failure!

One of the six firms donated money directly to the Tory party. Two of the firms are known for blacklisting workers. Amazingly, one of the firms is currently under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office for suspected offences of bribery and corruption. Another has previously been caught red-handed mispricing contracts, underestimating their eventual cost. As a consequence, £130 million was wiped off its share value. Another of the companies operates in the Cayman Islands and has been shown to use that location as a way of avoiding tax. Another of the firms is part of a group that has reportedly abused and exploited migrant workers in Qatar. My reaction to all that—I do not know whether it is unparliamentary—is to use three letters: WTF! What were the Government doing producing a list of that kind?

The truth is that, as it is now with this list, so it ever was with this Government. Back in 2017, while the Government were sleeping on the job, I submitted a written parliamentary question asking how many strategic suppliers had been rated either green, amber, red or black according to the severity of the risk posed by the supplier to the taxpayer. The Government’s reply was fascinating. They refused to tell us how many of the suppliers posed a risk, saying that that could prejudice the contractors’ commercial interests. I did not ask the identity of those contractors; I asked only for the number that posed a risk to taxpayer interests. So my question posed no commercial threat whatever to any company. The Government’s response illuminates their whole approach, which shows little regard for the needs of the taxpayer while paying far too much attention to protecting the commercial interests of their suppliers through every stage of the procurement process.

In the past few days, I have been approached by a whistleblower. He told me that the civil service had advised Government Ministers to insert into every outsourcing contract an indemnity clause whereby the supplier of the service would indemnify the taxpayer, should the company get into difficulty. Remarkably, according to my whistleblower, the Government completely ignored the risk and rejected the advice. It was even more remarkable to discover that Carillion’s contracts with its subcontractors insist on the inclusion of such clauses in their contracts. The company, which has now become the poster child for corporate recklessness, took more steps to protect its finances than the supposed custodians of the taxpayers’ money sitting in their comfortable ministerial offices.

Carillion not only issued a number of profit warnings over the past few months, as we all now know, but it was also targeted by short selling, which is also wicked. Short selling is a practice whereby so-called investors bet on the collapse of a share price. It is as if the Government accept that the serious business of financing large enterprise is nothing more than a casino, with people betting against the price of companies. One firm, BlackRock—remember its name—was shorting so much that at one stage it owned nearly 10% of the entire company. The fact that that happened is troubling, but we then discover that Mr Osborne, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer who signed off the Government deals with Carillion, is now being paid £650,000 a year by BlackRock. While it was common knowledge that Carillion was one of the most shorted stocks on the exchange, the Government, seemingly wholly ignorant of everything going on around them, continued to hand contracts to Carillion to the tune of billions of pounds.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

rose—

[Jon Trickett]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I ask him to answer the following question. Does he believe it to be right and proper for the governing party to receive donations from a person who is currently exercising a supervisory public function as a Crown representative on the Government’s behalf? Does he think that that is right?

[James Cartlidge]

It is very kind of the hon. Gentleman to tell me what my question should be about, but I was going to ask him whether it is his policy to take all the contracts in-house.

[Jon Trickett]

I will get to that in due course. However, the hon. Gentleman did not defend the practice of Crown representatives handing money to the Conservative party. Not only is the Crown representative for the energy sector a Tory party donor, but that person donated £15,000 to the Prime Minister, who took the money.

Court testimonies submitted over the past few days as part of Carillion’s liquidation show that its key clients, lenders and insurers were already pulling out of the business and getting well clear of it months ago. The private sector clearly saw a fire, but the Government did not even detect smoke from a company that appeared to be then, and obviously is now, going up in flames. Perhaps that was why the Government failed to appoint a Crown representative for the three crucial months at the end of last year when it became clear that Carillion was in deep trouble and was issuing profit warnings left, right and centre.

Crown representatives are appointed to monitor, on behalf of the taxpayer, the contracts of key strategic suppliers to Government and to ensure that everything is running smoothly. I have already referred to one Crown representative, but the House may be interested to know about the backgrounds of some of them, because they are curious. A number of them—this is unbelievable—actually oversee contracts that relate to their own private sector work and yet they are appointed by the state to look after outsourcing on the public’s behalf. As I just mentioned, one of them donated £15,000 directly to the Prime Minister herself. I will use some strong language here: the ordinary man or woman in the street can draw only one conclusion, which is that this has been a complete racket.

Carillion posed a clear and present risk to the taxpayer, but not only did the Government fail to act, they had a cosy relationship with the key decision makers, some of whom were active Tory supporters.

The problem goes well beyond Carillion, so let me widen the argument. The Government have failed to think strategically about the risks to the economy, as well as the risks to the taxpayer and public services. The Government handed over 450 separate contracts to Carillion, which employed 20,000 workers and used 30,000 separate subcontractors. This was a major industry that had an impact everywhere in the country, yet the company was clearly deep in trouble for some time. Frankly, I have no confidence at all in the statement rushed out by the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington) in the last couple of hours before this debate. The assurances in that document are pretty feeble. We want an absolute guarantee on behalf of the people employed directly or indirectly by the company that both their jobs and the services provided by the company will be protected.

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jon Trickett]

I will give way but, in doing so, let me ask her the following question. [Interruption.] This is a debate.

[The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury (David Rutley)]

Well, let her ask you a question.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I have the greatest respect for the hon. Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley), but we do not normally have a Whip joining in. I am sure he will not be joining in again later. The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) is giving way. Let him give way, and I am sure we can get on with the debate.

What I am bothered about is that a lot of people want to speak, so please let us not waste time attacking each other.

[Jon Trickett]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is not Question Time, and we are not the Government. This is a debate, and I am perfectly entitled to ask questions and to make points. Does the hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) believe that companies with public contracts paid for by taxpayers’ money should pay tax in the United Kingdom, yes or no?

[Rachel Maclean]

The short answer is yes. The hon. Gentleman says that he has no confidence in this Government’s ability to award public sector contracts. Does he therefore have any confidence in the previous Labour Government, who awarded billions of pounds of contracts to private sector companies, and in Labour-run Leeds City Council, which did the same? Does he have no confidence in his Labour colleagues?

[Jon Trickett]

Carillion did not go bust eight years ago, when Labour was in power; it went bust last week. The fact is that the hon. Lady has not answered the central point, which is that 13 of the 20 biggest Government contractors have subsidiaries in tax havens—[Interruption.] And the Minister is prepared to defend it. It is outrageous. [Interruption.] Leeds City Council, in which I no longer play a part, did not hand over a contract to Carillion the other week.

Thirteen of the 20 largest Government contractors have subsidiaries in tax havens. Those companies are happy to take taxpayers’ money and make a profit, but it seems that they are not prepared to pay tax back, which is morally incorrect and should not be happening. In fact, it is a scandal.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) put a question to my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) on local authorities. Does he agree that the reason local authorities are too often forced down the route of contracting out services is that the Government have starved them of funding for the past seven years, meaning that local authorities simply do not have the wherewithal to do the work themselves?

[Jon Trickett]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful and unanswerable point.

We want a categorical assurance that the jobs of the subcontractors and employees are protected and that the services will be sustained. Is it not clear that the Government played roulette with people’s livelihoods in the most reckless manner? The truth is that the Government have been so wedded to the dogmatic idea that the private is always good and the public is always bad that they never questioned the existing orthodoxy, even when the evidence was right in front of their nose.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Jon Trickett]

I will give way, but I want to make some progress.

[Dr Huq]

I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell): it is a pleasure to see you back in your place, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) shared my horror today at pages 4 and 5 of the Daily Mirror, which report:

“‘Greed and lunacy’ as Carillion paid shareholders £500m while pension…hole spiralled out of control.”

Surely any company of this magnitude should meet its statutory obligations before paying out dividends to shareholders.

[Jon Trickett]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. In the 16 years up to 2016, the dividends paid to shareholders increased every single year, while the pension pot and the conditions of work and the pay that the workers received was diminishing. By the way, Mr Deputy Speaker, I met a subcontractor of Carillion the other day, who told me that the company had a policy of not paying anybody in December, because on 1 January the bank wanted to look and see how much liquidity was left. Is that not shocking?

Maybe the Government’s devotion to outsourcing is the real reason why they have failed so monumentally in relation to Carillion. They had a blind assumption—and still have—that contracting out works efficiently, and that the market always knows best, which we know is not the case. If they do not learn from the repeated failures of outsourcing, there will be another Carillion around the corner, and then another and another. One needs only to look at companies such as Interserve and Mitie, which deliver public services, to see how fragile some of these Government contractors are.

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

rose—

[Jon Trickett]

I could stand here and reel off a long list of outsourcing companies that have been guilty of fraud, tax avoidance, blacklisting, failure to pay contractors, and even, shockingly, billing the taxpayer for tagging people who had died. They have presided over, and have been vehemently committed to, a failed and failing ideological project. That is my charge today.

My opposite number, who I am pleased to see in his place—the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—has personally shown lots of enthusiasm for handing out Government contracts—

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

rose—

[Jon Trickett]

I am trying to make some progress. [Interruption.] Well, they will be glad that I am making progress, then.

In the Minister’s role at the Ministry of Justice, what did he do? He awarded a £25 million Government contract to G4S. But that company was under investigation for fraud against the taxpayer. He snuck out plans to privatise the collection of court fines, and he even proposed giving private companies the power to arrest our fellow citizens. His Department bailed out a private probation service with an additional £277 million over seven years, and he failed to deliver the promised £115 million that he said would be delivered by outsourcing two prisons.

We need to change direction. Let me briefly set out the case, because outsourcing of procurement has boomed under this Tory Government. It is now worth £242 billion. Nearly a third of public expenditure—of our taxes—is being put at risk by a Government who are blindly following a dogma.

To be clear, there never was a true market in outsourcing. It is an oligopoly. The course of action that the British Government set out on has led only to the creation of a handful of mega-corporations, almost too big to fail, and those corporations have penetrated nearly every aspect of the state, both central and local. This so-called market works well for a handful of companies making huge profits out of the taxpayer, but it is not working for anybody else.

We want the Government to see the facts as they are, not through the lens of a tired, stale, outdated, dogmatic view of the world. Jeremy Corbyn, our leader, commenting on the Carillion debacle—

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Tobias Ellwood)]

He’s gone!

[Jon Trickett]

Well, we still pay tribute to our leader, unlike some of the Government Members, who seem to be making up a point about it. Let us see how many of them—[Interruption.] My party leader said that we have now reached—

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

rose—

[Jon Trickett]

I am coming to an end. He said that we are now coming to a turning point, and he was right. He caught the mood of the country. The public are tired of outsourcing. They want democratically accountable, quality services, which are run effectively and efficiently in the interests of the public. Every poll we can look at shows the same thing: the people are completely disabused of this whole process. That is why the House of Commons must take up the task that the Government have failed to act on. Where else could we start but by referring the matter to our excellent Public Accounts Committee? That is what the motion recommends.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jon Trickett]

I will not—I am finishing. The Prime Minister and her Government have squandered taxpayers’ money on a failing dogma. They have run out of new ideas. They have proved unable to grasp the change that our country desperately needs. Even her own MPs agree. The right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) says:

“Where’s the bold and the brave?”

He is talking to the Prime Minister. He says, “it’s dull, dull, dull.” He is absolutely correct.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I preface my remarks by saying what a pleasure it is to see you back in the Chair? The Opposition spokesman has referred to the “excellent” PAC. I am its deputy Chair, but he will not let me intervene. How can the debate be fair if he will not let me intervene?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jon Trickett]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I say to my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), if I may call him my hon. Friend for a moment—we used to be pairs, back in the old days when pairing worked. I must not say this in front of any Whips, so I hope they are not listening: there were occasions when he and I arranged our escape plans to avoid some of those late votes. However, in this case he is entirely wrong. In any event, should he really speak on a motion that says that the matter should go to the PAC?

I was finishing my speech. “Dull, dull, dull!” With those words, I commend the motion to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffiths]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point; he mentioned it earlier in the debate. I think he said it was asked to “finish the job for nothing”. I can confirm, having discussed it with the special manager, that anybody who is contracted to complete work after the date of compulsory liquidation will be paid by the special manager. I can put him straight on that one.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), when he had finished his Castro-esque anti-capitalism rant, raised the issue of apprentices in his constituency who were sobbing because they had lost their opportunity of an apprenticeship. I think that that issue was also raised from the Opposition Front Bench. The Construction Industry Trading Board has taken over responsibility for the apprenticeships, and 1,100 of the 1,400 apprentices who are currently working for Carillion have had face-to-face interviews with the board and have been offered new apprenticeship roles. The board has confirmed that any of those 1,400 who wish to continue their training will be allowed to do so, which I think is very good news.

The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) said that he was “excited”. This is probably the only occasion on which I will agree with him in the Chamber—he certainly was excited.

My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office set out his approach to the oversight of contracts and awards and how that process relates to Carillion, and gave a detailed explanation of the measures that had been introduced. Let me add that when it was decided to place Carillion in insolvency, the Government had two priorities: to protect and maintain the delivery of vital services in schools, hospitals and prisons and on the railways, and to support not only the 19,500 people directly employed by Carillion, but the contractors and small businesses involved.

It was because we wanted to support the people whose lives had been affected that, on the very day of the collapse, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State held a meeting with the eight largest trade bodies in the construction sector in order to understand better what we could practically do to help. They had four requests. First, they said that they wanted to be supported by their banks at that difficult time. In response, the Secretary of State and I convened a meeting of the banks, and asked them for tailored and sympatheic support for those affected. As a result of that meeting, nearly £1 billion has been made available by major lenders such as HSBC, Lloyds, RBS, and Santander in the form of loans, credit facilities and further financial support.

Secondly, many small businesses, in particular, were concerned about imminent tax liabilities. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has now said that a “time to pay” facility will be available to businesses affected by Carillion’s insolvency, to give them the support and flexibility that they need.

Thirdly, the bodies asked for a meeting with the official receiver’s specialist manager to discuss the particular needs of the supply chain. At the Secretary of State’s request, PricewaterhouseCoopers has now met them, and me, twice, in order to tailor specific support where it is needed. Fourthly, they asked for a taskforce to be established to pool efforts to help the supply chain in particular. In response we have formed such a taskforce, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, which will meet for the third time—

[Jon Trickett]

Another one?

[Andrew Griffiths]

This taskforce was requested by the trade unions because they thought that it would have value. If the hon. Gentleman does not think that that is an effective thing for us to do, perhaps he will have a word with his friend Len.

The taskforce includes representatives of business sector organisations, the TUC, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Cabinet Office, the Local Government Association and the Construction Industry Training Board. We are working together to address the challenges, and to come up with solutions that will support the affected businesses and employees.

Finally, there is the issue of accountability. There have been questions about directors’ pay and bonuses. I can reassure the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has written to the Insolvency Service asking it to investigate the actions of the directors properly. He has also written to the Financial Reporting Council to ensure that the actions of not just the current directors, but previous directors, are thoroughly investigated. Powers include the ability to claw back bonuses if that is required.

We have stepped up to work with those businesses that, through no fault of their own, find themselves in a difficult position. We give a commitment to this House that at the forefront of our efforts are the thousands of people whose jobs and livelihoods, through no fault of their own, have been affected by the Carillion insolvency—

Carillion

Jon Trickett Excerpts

Monday 15th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for an advance copy of the statement. The House will conclude that it was recklessly complacent for the Government to seek to avoid responsibility and to place it on to the company. After all, Carillion provides 450 separate taxpayer-funded contracts to the public, with 20,000 people working directly for it and many thousands more in the supply chain. All those thousands of people will have heard his reference to Jobcentre Plus with a shudder of fear for their futures at the beginning of a new year.

Will the Minister confirm that Carillion provides services to this Conservative Government in 50 prisons, 9,000 schools, 200 operating theatres and 11,000 hospital beds, as well as across a whole series of infrastructure works? Two fifths of Carillion’s income is paid by the taxpayer, so when did the Government first realise that Carillion was in trouble? After all, it had three chief executive officers in a short space of time, made three separate profit warnings and its stock was already subject to short selling on the stock exchange back in 2015. The Minister says that the Government were monitoring the company, so why did they leave the position of the Crown representative observing Carillion vacant for more than three months? How can they explain that £2 billion-worth of Government contracts—taxpayers’ money—was awarded despite all the information that has clearly been in the public domain? I have been asking questions about Carillion in this House for over three months. Why was it apparent to everyone except the Government that Carillion was in trouble? The Secretary of State for Transport in particular has questions to answer. Can the House be told what the Government knew about Carillion’s financial health when they awarded a £1.4 billion contract for HS2 quite recently?

The Minister has failed to satisfy the House that the jobs of Carillion’s employees and all those in the supply chain will be safeguarded. Will he confirm that the pay, conditions and jobs of those staff are the Government’s priority? Why has he apparently not had a single conversation with representatives of the workforce about their jobs and pensions? Those people should be a higher priority than the executives’ bonuses, which appear to have been safeguarded. Will he assure the House that Carillion is not the first in a series of suppliers that will fall one after the other like dominoes?

The Government have announced that public money will be given, presumably to the liquidator, to carry out vital public service contracts, but does that not mean that decisions about those contracts have now slipped out of the Government’s control and into the hands of an unaccountable administrator? Would not the simplest, most effective and most democratic way to handle all the contracts have been to bring them back into the public sector, where the ethos of serving the public prevails, rather than that of private profit? Is it not the case that the Government themselves and the Conservative party have too cosy a relationship with the chair of Carillion’s board who—believe it or not—is the Government’s chosen corporate responsibility tsar? He also urged people to vote Tory during the 2015 election. It is a chumocracy.

Is it not time that we reversed the presumption in favour of outsourcing once and for all? After all, this is not about the failure of a single company, but of a whole ideological system of contracting out public services. The Government are incompetent in office, reckless with taxpayers’ money and helpless with public services. Is it not time that they made way for an Administration that care, and will exercise due diligence?

[Mr Lidington]

First, may I correct the hon. Gentleman on one specific point about schools? He said that 9,000 schools have contracts with Carillion, but the figure I have is about 230—219 plus a small number of building contracts—which is much smaller than the exaggerated figure that he gave the House.

As I said in my statement, 60%—roughly three fifths—of Carillion’s revenues are actually from contracts that have nothing to do with the United Kingdom Government. Indeed, the problems that Carillion faced arose in the most part from those contracts, not from Government contracts.

The position of private sector employees is that they will not be getting the same protection that we are offering to public sector employees beyond a 48-hour period of grace, during which the Government will sustain the official receiver to give time for the private sector counter-parties to Carillion to decide whether they want to accept termination of those contracts or to pay for the ongoing costs. That is a reasonable gesture towards private sector employees.

As for those who have been employed by the Carillion group to deliver public service contracts, the Government are continuing to pay their wages for the services delivered —those payments are being made through the official receiver, instead of through Carillion. That money, of course, is budgeted for by various Departments, local authorities and NHS trusts. The best help that one can give to employees delivering vital public services is to give them the assurance that we are continuing to pay their wages and salaries, and not to indulge in the sort of scaremongering to which I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is prone.

The private sector employees are entitled to know that assistance will be there from Jobcentre Plus after the 48-hour period of grace runs out, when a number of them may face termination of the Carillion contracts through which they have been employed.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the contracts that were awarded after the first profits warning in 2017. As I said earlier, there was a small number of those contracts. The defence contracts were actually agreed and signed before the profits warning, although they were announced afterwards. The Government, quite rightly, have to operate a fair and transparent procurement process, guided by the Public Contracts Regulations 2015. There are a number of tests of financial capability for potential contractors. At the time when all those post-July 2017 contracts were bid for and awarded, Carillion met all the mandated tests, so it would have been, to put it mildly, a legal risk to have treated Carillion any differently from other bidders that were able to meet the tests.

In the light of what was in the public domain about Carillion’s profits warning, the Government Departments responsible for the contracts ensured that there were arrangements, such as the joint venture provision, to give protection in the event of Carillion being unsuccessful in its attempts, about which it was confident, to secure an agreement with its bankers. I emphasise that no money is paid to Carillion, or to any other contractor, other than for services that are actually delivered, so there is no question of money being spent twice for the same service.

I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman resorted to party politics in his response. It is worth reminding ourselves of who awarded Carillion its contracts. Of the Carillion contracts that, until this morning, were still active, roughly a third were awarded by the Conservative Government, roughly a third were awarded by the coalition Government when the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable) was Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, and the other third were awarded by the Labour Government, during which time the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), as he knows, worked in the office of the then Prime Minister.

When the hon. Gentleman returns to this subject, I suggest he treats it with the seriousness it deserves and does not preach sermons without taking a long, hard look in the mirror.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jon Trickett Excerpts

Wednesday 10th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Oliver Dowden]

I thank my right hon. and learned Hertfordshire Friend for his welcome. He raises an important point. There are two aspects of this: there is the direct spend—as I have said, it is about £5.6 billion—but we also need to ensure that we get spend into contracts lower down, with people who have Government contracts then spending with small businesses, which is something we are committed to doing as a Government.

[Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)]

Too often, rather than outsourcing to SMEs, very large companies are employed. In this respect, despite being under investigation by the Financial Conduct Authority and reportedly having debts of £1.5 billion, the massive outsourcing company Carillion remains a major supplier in terms of Government procurement. If it were to collapse, it would risk massive damage to a range of public services. Do the Government have a contingency plan for such an eventuality, and what is the likely cost to the taxpayer?

[Oliver Dowden]

As the hon. Gentleman would expect, we of course make contingency plans for all eventualities. If I could briefly update the House, Carillion, as Members will know, is a major supplier to the Government, with a number of long-term contracts. We are committed to maintaining a healthy supplier market and working closely with our key suppliers. I can tell the House that Carillion’s operational performance has continued to be positive. For example, it advanced its work on Crossrail over the Christmas period.

[Jon Trickett]

The truth is that the Minister has failed to answer the central question. The Government have been outsourcing public services to large outsourcing companies on an industrial scale. When these massive outsourcing companies fail, as too often they do, does the Minister really think it is fair that the costs stay with the taxpayer, while the profits are creamed off by the shareholders?

[Oliver Dowden]

I do not think there is anything wrong with profit. Profit is a reward for investment made by businesses. Perhaps if the hon. Gentleman had listened to my answer, he would not have had to read a pre-scripted question. I gently suggest to him that this is something the Government take very seriously. We, for the first time, as a Government—this had not been done for 13 years previously—started measuring the number of small and medium-sized enterprises that have Government contracts. We set a target of 25% in the last Parliament, and we have delivered on that, so I think that is a record of success for this Government.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jon Trickett Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. The National Cyber Security Centre, along with GCHQ, has established a programme of assessment and certification. Some 20 degrees have been certified, most of which are one-year postgraduate master’s degrees in cyber-security, and 14 universities are now academic centres of excellence in cyber-security research, precisely so that we can maintain a pipeline of skilled people to help our cyber-defences.

[Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)]

We have learnt today that Uber’s suppression of a database hack involving tens of millions of people is to be investigated, but there were 9,000 data breaches by the Government in a single year, according to the National Audit Office, although they notified the Information Commissioner’s Office of only 14 of them. Such contraventions clearly pose questions about our personal privacy and security. Given the scale of what is happening with the internet, action is clearly needed for further protection of the public. But last year the Government spent only—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but we are very pressed for time. We need a sentence and a question. We have to press on because we have a lot of people to accommodate.

[Jon Trickett]

Last year, the Government announced that they had spent only £230 million of the £1.9 billion allowance that had been made. Will the Minister get on with spending that money to protect our citizens?

[Damian Green]

We are absolutely getting on with spending the money to protect our citizens in the ways I have just set out. The hon. Gentleman will realise that that £1.9 billion is to be spent over five years, so the fact that we have spent £230 million-odd in the first year is about what we would expect. It is a continuous programme of continuous improvement.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jon Trickett Excerpts

Wednesday 11th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

No, the spirit and letter of the devolution settlement is that there are areas of responsibility for this Parliament and the Westminster Government, and areas of responsibility for the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly. We have said that these have to be UK-wide frameworks. I think the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues in the Scottish Government accept that we do not want to break up the UK single market, but that there are responsibilities that will remain with Scotland.

[Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)]

The Chancellor has written today that the Government must be prepared for every outcome from Brexit, but that he will not make resources available for a no-deal scenario. As well as managing the civil service, the Cabinet Office is responsible for co-ordinating Government policy. Whatever the Chancellor’s views, will the Minister now indicate that there is sufficient civil service resource currently working on the potentially disastrous no-deal Brexit scenario and its impact on the devolved Administrations?

[Damian Green]

I commend to the hon. Gentleman what the Chancellor actually said. I am happy to reassure the hon. Gentleman and the House that, yes, the Government are preparing for all eventualities, as any responsible Government would.

[Jon Trickett]

The truth is there is no contingency planning for a no-deal Brexit, and that explains the breakdown of policy co-ordination, for which the Minister is supposedly responsible, right at the heart of Government. The Government are a shambles and wholly divided. We have a Prime Minister who said that no deal was better than a bad deal, a Chancellor who now says he will not fund a no-deal scenario and a Foreign Secretary who seems perfectly happy with a no-deal arrangement. The stakes could not be higher, but the Government are a shambles. Is it not time they either got their act together—it is the Minister’s job to make sure that they do so—or stood aside and prepared the way for a Government who will act in the national interest?

[Damian Green]

I am happy again to assure the hon. Gentleman that the appropriate arrangements for all eventualities are being prepared, and of course the Government are working hard to make sure we get the best Brexit deal for this country—one that will ensure the future prosperity of this country for decades to come.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jon Trickett Excerpts

Wednesday 5th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

My hon. Friend makes a perfectly valid point. Everyone in this House wants to be fair to public sector workers, but Conservative Members also want to be fair to taxpayers. It is very important that we strike the right balance. If we do not strike that balance, we will wreck the economy, which is what would happen with the Labour party’s ridiculous uncosted policy proposals.

[Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)]

While cutting the real-terms pay of nurses, the police, fire officers and others, the Prime Minister has broken her own £72,000 cap that she advocated for the salaries of political appointees. A third of all her special advisers earn more than that, and her two ill-fated chiefs of staff earned almost double that amount. How can the Minister justify pay restraint for nurses when there is no restraint in No. 10? Will he put an end to the pay cap in the public sector by changing the guidelines that the Government give to the pay review bodies? Finally, will he reject the former Prime Minister’s disgraceful slur that wanting to earn a decent income in the public sector is somehow selfish?

[Damian Green]

Let me answer some of the hon. Gentleman’s questions. I hope he recognises that, as I have just said, the Government have accepted every recommendation made by a public sector pay review body since 2014. Striking the right balance between being fair to public sector workers and being fair to taxpayers must be the right way forward. The suggestions that were made during the election campaign, and clearly continue to be made, by the Labour party would lead to the situation that the Greek people have had to suffer: precisely because of irresponsible commitments made by their Government, they have had to slash their public services. Public services get worse under the sort of economic policy advised by the Labour party.

Draft Electoral Registration Pilot Scheme (England) (Amendment) Order 2017 Draft Electoral Registration Pilot Scheme (England and Wales) Order 2017 Draft Electoral Registration Pilot Scheme (Scotland) Order 2017 Draft Representation of the People (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2017

Jon Trickett Excerpts

Monday 24th April 2017 General Committees

[Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)]

Welcome to the Chair, Sir David. I know that you are always firm but fair in these Committees. I hope that you are firm with the Government and fair with us; I can hope, at least. I know that many Government Members are preparing for involuntary early retirement in a few weeks’ time, given that we are expecting a surge for our party, so they will probably not want to be detained for too long here. You will bring me back to attention very quickly, Sir David, so I had better move on from those minor points.

The Minister made a reasonably convincing case for the instruments before the Committee today, but let me set out a few general points about how we see the Government’s attitude and behaviour in relation to this matter, and then I will ask some questions. We feel that the Government’s general approach to electoral processes gives the impression of regularly tinkering, rather than forming a firm solution to resolve the issue of electoral registration in the current century. There is an impression that they often make rushed decisions that then have to be changed after being implemented, and that the approach to those changes is bureaucratic and slightly over-centralised. An important value behind local government having EROs under its control is that we have a devolved system of administration, rather than a centralised democratic machinery. That is one of the great assets of the British political system.

My feeling, both from what the Minister said and the explanatory note, which I have no doubt all Members have read diligently, is that the measures are driven primarily by financial reasons, rather than the enhancement of democracy. I say that because threaded through almost every paragraph of the Minister’s comments were expressions about the savings that will be achieved by the pilots. The explanatory memorandum clearly tells us all that, in its current form under IER, the annual canvass

“is proving to be an unsustainable cost burden for local authorities to administer.”

There are two ways of approaching unsustainable costs: trying to find ways of saving money—we are definitely in favour of efficiency and cost-effectiveness—and ensuring that local authorities are properly funded, which the Government, lamentably, have failed to do. I will come back in a moment to general cost savings and the severe pressures on EROs.

By the way, if the Minister wants to say that this is not a cost-saving exercise or part of an austerity agenda—a kind of bargain basement democracy that some might call a Poundland approach to politics—perhaps he will indicate that he is happy for any savings achieved to be ring-fenced in local authorities for the further enhancement of democratic processes. Otherwise, some people might arrive at the conclusion—perhaps fairly—that this is about saving money, rather than enhancing democracy.

The Minister has not really explained why it was necessary to introduce the draft orders in the dying days of this Parliament. The orders will come into force on 30 June, but that is an arbitrary date. I will come to the date shortly, because it seems to me that it conflicts with other obligations on EROs to avoid making changes in the run-up to elections. Of course, all EROs face at least one election in the next six weeks, and most face two. An explanation must be given for why the draft orders could not wait until the next Parliament. Perhaps the Minister will reflect on that in his response.

I would like to raise several points on which I hope we will get clarification that helps us to decide how to approach the draft orders. More than 600,000 people were knocked off the electoral register as a result of the IER scheme. We know that quite a lot came back on because they wanted to vote for Brexit, but that was not a product of the IER scheme; it was a product of people’s political imperative to vote in the referendum. Is not the need for the pilot schemes due to the fact that IER is failing to register the whole population and producing the unsustainable cost pressures that I have referred to?

I talked a few moments ago about the pressure on local government, which is central to this matter unless we have a centralised electoral registration system. Perhaps the Minister will indicate that he does not intend to introduce such a system. Billions of pounds have been slashed from local government budgets since 2010. We accept that everyone has to tighten their belts, but there will be a £5.8 billion funding gap in local government by 2020. Is it not the case that EROs and councils as a whole are consequently under huge cost pressures? Is that the real reason why the draft orders were introduced?

The Association of Electoral Administrators has said that its members are increasingly overstretched. In fact, it recently published a document titled “Pushed to the absolute limit”. There will soon be two elections in most areas, and now we will run pilots. I struggle to understand why we are adding to the burden on EROs. The Minister needs to explain why he brought forward the draft orders today, beyond the need to make a few million pounds of savings.

The Minister said that there was wide consultation about the pilot schemes. He indicated that he spoke to the Electoral Commission and various other august bodies, but, as far as I can see, he does not seem to have consulted the wider public and civil society. Many citizens, in organisations and elsewhere in civil society, know how precious our democracy is and are really concerned. I do not think that he consulted any of those people. It may be that he thinks he should not consult political parties, which have an interest in these matters, but I do not think political parties were consulted. Were any third sector organisations or political parties consulted about the pilots? It would be interesting to know.

Something else that appears to be missing is local political oversight of the pilots. As far as I can see, it is intended that reports will be made straight back to the Cabinet Office. There have been some pilots that were administered by the Cabinet Office, but I cannot find where the results were reported, other than in the few sentences of explanation that the Minister just gave to the Committee. Will he commit himself to reporting the pilot results to the House, so that we can all look at what they have produced? We will want to use two measures, will we not? First, does it enhance our democracy? Secondly, is it cost-effective? Clearly, in these difficult times, every single pound and penny counts. Will the local authorities’ elected members have a role in monitoring the pilots?

The other day in the House, the Select Committee on Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs reported on the referendum and it also referred to elections. It said—and this has been a matter of debate—that our electoral processes are to some extent exposed to risk from cyber-attacks, either by foreign powers or individuals with particular talents. Will part of the pilots be about making sure that the system is secure, so that it cannot be subjected to the kinds of cyber-attacks that we have read about and that horrify us, because we believe in an independent and secure electoral system to protect our precious democracy?

Finally, in the past few days 350,000 people have registered to vote, including a huge number of under-25s. I am sure that every one of us welcomes that interest in democracy and all those people coming on to the register. We want more to come on, as well. Has the Minister taken that surge in registration into account, and does he share my concern, which is felt widely around the country, that there are still hundreds of thousands and possibly millions of people not registered to vote and therefore not capable of taking part in our democracy?

We obviously welcome any cost savings or efficiencies that can be achieved, but we want reassurance that those will not imperil the democratic processes that are so important to us. We know the risks that arise when there is a breakdown of trust and confidence in the electoral machinery. In our country that machinery has always worked well, neutrally and independently of party politics.

Perhaps the Minister will have to write to us about some of the matters I have raised, but I shall be interested to hear what he has to say.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jon Trickett Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chris Skidmore]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We need to ensure that we learn from the experience of domestic abuse survivors. We must look at that particular journey and ensure that the registration process, when we have it, works for women who need extra protection. We must also look at refuge managers to ensure that we provide the support that they will need.

[Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)]

It is obviously welcome that the Government are seeking to protect the voting rights of domestic violence survivors by making anonymity easier—by the way, the announcement of a one-off cash injection for specialist refuges is also welcome, although much more is needed. However, people cannot easily vote if they have no fixed abode. The truth is that Women’s Aid estimates that one in six of all specialist refuges have closed since 2010, and, tragically, over 150 women plus 100 children per day are unable to find a specialist refuge. Will the Minister ensure that the inter-ministerial group now addresses the twin central questions: providing sustainable funding for refuges and ensuring comprehensive refuge provision in every part of the country?

[Chris Skidmore]

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we have increased funding for women’s refuges. The Prime Minister has set out very clearly that she wishes to make domestic violence one of her personal priorities, and a review is ongoing. When it comes to registration, let me be clear: this issue was raised with me, through Women’s Aid, by a lady called Mehala Osborne. She is a survivor of domestic abuse, and she has fought bravely by putting her name out in the public domain to campaign for other women. There are potentially 12,000 women who, by virtue of their circumstances, cannot take the step of registering to vote, and we are determined to give them their voice so that they are heard.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Jon Trickett Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 2, in line 5, leave out ‘consultant’ and insert ‘professional’.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dawn Primarolo)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment 76.

Amendment 5, in line 8, leave out ‘consultant’ and insert ‘professional’.

Amendment 7, in line 12, leave out ‘consultant’ and insert ‘professional’.

Amendment 48, in clause 2, page 1, line 12, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

‘(1) For the purposes of this Part, a person carries on the business of lobbying if in the course of a business and in return for payment—

(a) the person makes communications within subsection (3), or advises another person on the making of communications within subsection (3), and

(b) none of the exceptions in Part 1 of Schedule 1 applies.’.

Amendment 8, in clause 2, page 2, line 2, leave out ‘on behalf of another person or persons’.

Government amendment 77.

Amendment 9, in clause 2, page 2, line 4, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—

‘(b) in return for payment the person advises others how to make communications within subsection (3).

(c) in return for payment the person arranges or facilitates a formal or informal meeting within subsection (3).’.

Amendment 161, in clause 2, page 2, line 4, at end insert—

‘(1A) A person carries on the business of professional lobbying if—

(a) the person is directly employed by a non-lobbying business to perform the role of making communications within the meaning of subsection (3);

(b) the person is contracted to perform the role of making communications within the meaning of subsection (3) by a non-lobbying business; or

(c) in addition to other duties within their business, they make communication within the meaning of subsection (3).’.

Amendment 52, in schedule 1, page 50, line 18, leave out paragraph 3.

Government amendment 91.

Amendment 17, in schedule 1, page 50,  line 18, leave out ‘consultant’ and insert ‘professional’.

Amendment 18, in schedule 1, page 50, leave out lines 19 to 24 and insert—

‘(a) the person is a constituent contacting or communicating with their Member of Parliament;

(b) the person is making communications solely on his or her own behalf;

(c) the person is responding to a government consultation exercise;

(d) the person is responding to an invitation to submit information or evidence to a Parliamentary Select Committee or Public Bill Committee;

(e) the person is acting in an official capacity on behalf of a government organisation;

(f) a person is making communications without remuneration;

(g) the person is responding to or complying with a court order,’.

Government amendments 92 to 95.

Amendment 19, in schedule 1, page 50, line 25, leave out sub-paragraph 3(2) and insert—

‘A person is carrying on the business of professional lobbying if they are acting—

(a) on behalf of a client, or

(b) on behalf of an employer.’.

Amendment 20, in schedule 1, page 50, line 30, leave out sub-paragraph 3(3) .

Amendment 21, in schedule 1, page 50, line 33, leave out sub-paragraph 3(4) .

Amendment 22, in schedule 1, page 51, line 8, leave out ‘consultant’ and insert ‘professional’.

Government amendments 96 and 97.

Amendment 24, in schedule 1, page 51, line 21, leave out ‘consultant’ and insert ‘professional’.

Amendment 25, in schedule 1, page 51, line 43, leave out paragraph (7).

Amendment 26, in schedule 1, page 52, line 10, leave out paragraph (8). Amendment 27, in schedule 1, page 52, line 16, leave out paragraph (10).

Amendment 30, in clause 3, page 2, line 35, leave out ‘consultant’ and insert ‘professional’.

Government amendment 98.

Amendment 32, in clause 4, page 2, line 38, leave out ‘consultant’ and insert ‘professional’.

Amendment 33, in clause 4, page 3, line 12, leave out ‘consultant’ and insert ‘professional’.

Amendment 38, in clause 6, page 4, line 25, leave out ‘consultant’ and insert ‘professional’.

Amendment 39, in clause 9, page 5, line 12, leave out ‘consultant’ and insert ‘professional’.

Government amendment 81.

Amendment 41, in clause 12, page 6, line 22, leave out ‘consultant’ and insert ‘professional’.

Government amendments 82 to 85.

New clause 5—Definition of consultant lobbying

‘(1) In section 1 “consultant lobbying” means activities which are carried out in the course of a business for the purpose of—

(a) influencing government; or

(b) advising others how to influence government.

(2) Activities are to be taken as having the purpose specified in subsection (1) if a reasonable person would assume, having regard to all the circumstances, that the activities were intended to have the effect described in subsection (1)(a) or (b).

(3) In this section “government” includes, within the United Kingdom—

(a) central government, devolved government, local government;

(b) members and staff of either House of Parliament or of a devolved legislature;

(c) Ministers and officials; and

(d) public authorities (within the meaning of section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998).

(4) Subsection (1) does not include—

(a) anything done in response to or compliance with a court order;

(b) anything done for the purpose of complying with a requirement under an enactment;

(c) a public response to an invitation to submit information or evidence;

(d) a public response to a government consultation exercise;

(e) a formal response to a public invitation to tender;

(f) anything done by a person acting in an official capacity on behalf of a government organisation; or

(g) an individual who makes representations solely on his or her own behalf.

(5) In subsection (1) “influencing” includes informing, but making information or opinions public (for example, by way of advertisements or attributed articles in a newspaper) is not the provision of lobbying services.

(6) In this section—

(a) “business” includes any undertaking, including charitable and not-for-profit undertakings; and

(b) services provided by or on behalf of an undertaking are provided “in the course of a business”, even if the persons providing the services are acting on a pro bono, volunteer or not-for-profit basis.

(7) Subsection (1) applies whether a person is acting—

(a) on behalf of a client;

(b) on behalf of an employer;

(c) as a volunteer on behalf of a charitable or other organisation; or

(d) on the person’s own behalf (subject to subsection (4)(g)); but the Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument permit persons who provide lobbying services on behalf of an organisation (in any capacity) to rely on the organisation’s registration.

(8) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument provide that a person does not contravene section 1 by providing lobbying services without being registered, provided that the person becomes registered within a specified period beginning with the first date on which those services were provided.’.

Amendment 44, title, line 2l, leave out ‘consultant’ and insert ‘professional’.

[Jon Trickett]

Let me welcome you to the Chair, Ms Primarolo, for the start of this very important Committee stage. We all look forward to your wise advice as we proceed with detailed scrutiny of the first part of this absolutely dreadful Bill—a Bill which no single stakeholder of any importance has endorsed. Part 1 is in need of major change, and it is only as a result of the unfortunate abbreviation of the time available that we shall not be pressing every single one of our amendments to a vote. We will see how far we get. I do not intend to speak for too long, because there are so many important matters to be dealt with this afternoon. I apologise to the Committee for needing to slip out for a few minutes at some stage; I have a long-standing engagement.

I want to make three points. First, there is a need for a universal register of all lobbyists, to which amendment 2 and further consequential amendments refer. Secondly, we strongly object to the Government’s tabling of amendment 76, for reasons that I shall explain shortly. Thirdly, amendment 9 and amendment 48—tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee—widen the definition of “lobbyist” to ensure that all activities are properly registered.

The Government frequently claim to be the most transparent Government in history. That is a large claim. However, when it comes to making a choice between their commitment to transparency and the protection of vested interests, they always come down on the side of vested interests at the cost of transparency. That much is clear from the very first clause of the Bill, which needs to be amended.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

Earlier this year, a private health care company, Hospital Corporation of America, was awarded a contract to treat NHS brain tumour patients. That happened after the same company had donated £17,000 to the Conservative party. Does my hon. Friend agree that such transactions are the ones that the public want to get to the bottom of, and that the Bill does nothing to achieve that?

[Jon Trickett]

My hon. Friend has made a powerful point about the way in which the Bill that became the Health and Social Care Act 2012 was prepared. As we know, the private health industry operated substantially behind the scenes in preparing the ground for that Bill. We also know that the legislation has led to a variety of actions that seem to have introduced an increasing amount of engagement in the NHS by the private sector, but that is not the point that I am addressing this afternoon.

The Government’s decision to limit the register to consultant lobbyists will lead to a narrowing of the register, because it excludes nearly all the lobbyists who are working professionally in our country today. Indeed, it would deepen the shadows that many people believe fall wherever the industry practises. Our amendments will seek to make the register universal and transparent and make what the lobbyists are doing transparent, by bringing the whole of the professional industry into daylight.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

I am a little puzzled as to the distinction drawn in the hon. Gentleman’s amendments between the terms “consultant” and “professional”. Can he explain the difference?

[Jon Trickett]

I will explain it, but it is not too difficult to understand. I have met and consulted representatives of the whole of the industry, and they have told me that only a tiny proportion of the industry are so-called consultant lobbyists—third-party lobbyists or, as it were, hired guns. Professional lobbyists who work in-house will not be covered under the definition in the Bill, which is why we feel the use of the term “consultant lobbyist” narrows the Bill’s scope.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend for that very helpful explanation. I do not know whether he is aware of these comments made by Cameron Penny, a financial services lobbyist, on ConservativeHome:

“In a ludicrous reduction in the level of transparency to which I currently submit, the Bill wouldn’t mean I’d have to register as a lobbyist. As an employee who lobbies on behalf of an employer whose business is lobbying; they would have to register, I wouldn’t.”

I therefore urge Members on both sides of the Committee to support Labour’s amendment, so that we ensure that we establish a lobbying register that includes all lobbyists, not just a very narrow 1%.

[Jon Trickett]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. I met all the representative bodies of the lobbying industry only two or three weeks ago, and I asked them how many of their members would have to register under the definition of “consultant lobbyist”. They knew of nobody—not one single person—who would be both a consultant lobbyist and registered under the definition of lobbying in the Bill.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Jon Trickett]

I am going to make some more points on this matter in a few moments, and I may take some interventions then.

Our amendment would secure a register that includes in-house lobbyists as well as lobbying consultants and sole traders, all of whom are excluded under this Bill.

We should remember that in previous debates many Members reiterated the view that there is nothing wrong in principle with lobbying. In fact, lobbying brings life to our democracy and we, as Members of Parliament, frequently gain important information from being lobbied. Therefore, nothing I or any of my colleagues say today will suggest that there is anything wrong in principle with lobbying. That activity should, however, take place in the full light of day, not in the shadows.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

Is my hon. Friend aware that a leading tobacco company employed 161 people to lobby MEPs? Would all 161 of them be registered?

[Jon Trickett]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. I assume she is saying that the 161 individual lobbyists were employed by the tobacco company. If that is the case, under this Bill not one of them—not a single one—would be required to be on the register. That is why when she intervened on me I was saying that we want all lobbying activities to be brought into the full light of day, not remain in the shadows.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Has the hon. Gentleman discussed his proposals with leading national charities, because they might not wish to have to register their people, who are legitimately campaigning for their charitable purpose?

[Jon Trickett]

I have—but I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has done so. He might be well advised to meet them first, before asking a question like that. Yes, I have met the leading charities. I have also met representative organisations of the leading charities, and I have made two things clear to them. First, if they employ lobbyists according to the definition that we want to introduce, they will have to be registered. Even the large representative organisations say that that is the right thing to do. We are talking about professional lobbyists. Throughout the country, in every neighbourhood and constituency, there is much excellent community and charitable work that is undertaken voluntarily, and that is not professional lobbying. We do not expect people who lobby us at our surgeries with a particular problem in their neighbourhood to have to register. However, if a large organisation such as a charity—I can think of some that spend £300 million a year; that is their turnover—has parliamentary consultants working for them or for third party organisations that are lobbying Parliament in the material interests of that charity, that should be registered. The register will take only a few moments to fill in—it is not a particularly arduous task—and it is right that anyone who lobbies Parliament should be on it.

That is not my view alone, and it is not the view simply of the Opposition. I have met, as I have told the Committee, all the representative organisations of the lobbying industry. I have met many chairmen, chairwomen and managing directors of the larger lobbying companies and, almost without exception, they think that the Bill is too weak and does not go far enough, so they oppose it. I have also met all the lobbying transparency campaigners. One would not think that the people who campaign for lobbying and the people who campaign to constrain lobbying would inevitably share the same point of view but, in this case, without exception, both sides say that the Bill is simply inadequate.

The Bill is simply not up to the task, and it is likely to make lobbying more opaque, rather than more transparent. By suggesting that the register should include only consultant lobbyists, the register would exclude—these are important figures; they are not mine—99% of meetings between lobbyists and Ministers; 80% of lobbyists; and 95% of lobbying activity. Much of that activity and those lobbyists are already registered on voluntary registers. More likely than not, they will deregister if the Bill is introduced. We will know less about the industry and its activities than we do now.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that private meetings, private lunches and any contact that seeks to influence or give guidance to people on how to influence is not covered by the Bill?

[Jon Trickett]

That is a powerful point, but I do not want to stray too far down that track because you may rule me out of order, Ms Primarolo; the issue is not relevant to this group of amendments. However, the hon. Lady is quite correct—as a whole, the Bill completely excludes 99% of lobbying activity. Consultant lobbying does not include, for example, lobbyists who work in-house—a point that I have made in response to the Government. People who work for big tobacco companies or those who operate in law firms as lobbyists would not have to register.

I shall give the Committee an example. The right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt), the former Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, was revealed to have texted Mr Fred Michel, the in-house lobbyist for News Corporation, about matters that pertained to News Corporation’s business, but those exchanges would not have to be registered if the Bill became law, because Mr Michel was an in-house lobbyist, not a consultant lobbyist. One of the big scandals of this Parliament would simply be missed by legislation that is meant to clean up lobbying once and for all.

Even the Leader of the House conceded to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee that the definition of consultant lobbyist was narrow. He said—bear in mind that a Minister said this, not us—“It is not that we believe consultant lobbyists are the only ones lobbying. Clearly they are a minority.” The Leader of the House makes the point more effectively and with fewer words than I am. The point is that a very small minority of lobbyists and lobbying activity will be covered the Bill.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

As Members of Parliament, we expect to be lobbied by people who are lobbying in their own interests. In that respect, a company is a person. In legal terms it is just another person. We expect to be lobbied by our constituents and by other people who are not constituents in respect of matters of national interest. Will the hon. Gentleman explain why such lobbying is corrupt? What would be corrupt—[Interruption.] Excuse me. What would be corrupt is Members of Parliament receiving payment or being influenced by anything other than argument. Otherwise, I cannot see why he wants to capture so many people in a lobbying register. Will he explain that?

[Jon Trickett]

I will briefly make several points. First, there is a Government amendment before the Committee this afternoon that excludes companies from having to register, yet the hon. Gentleman points out that in law companies are individuals—they are legal persons. On corruption, I have not made the case that the lobbying industry is wholly corrupt. Not at all, but there is a huge gap between the population and the political and commercial elite in our country.

Too many people believe that decisions are made in secret, in the quiet rooms around here—smoke-filled rooms, perhaps. Nobody knows how those decisions are made or on whose behalf. It would be better if the general public understood how decisions were made, who was pressing for those decisions and in whose interests they were made. The Prime Minister himself said that sunlight is the best disinfectant. We should introduce legislation that would make sure that all lobbying activity was registered and properly accounted for. People would then know how decisions were made.

[Grahame M. Morris]

On the scope of the clause and the limitations on who is covered by it, Members of Parliament are lobbied, but will the public think it morally right that at least 58 Members of Parliament on the Government Benches have current or recent directorships or consultancy activities with private health care firms from which they benefit personally? That is not covered at all by the terms and scope of the Bill.

[Jon Trickett]

I thank my hon. Friend. My views on MPs’ second jobs are well known. They were debated in the House not too long ago.

The Leader of the House accepted that consultant lobbyists are a tiny minority. The Government have constructed a straw man argument in order to give the appearance that they are taking action on lobbying transparency, whereas in reality they are doing no such thing. Why is a register of consultant lobbyists proposed in the Bill? In my view it is because the Government merely want to be seen to be doing something while in fact doing very little.

We, the lobbying industry and the lobbying transparency campaigners, as well as the Select Committee, all want to act to achieve greater lobbying transparency for the good and the health of our democracy. We want to suggest something different to the Government. We want lobbying transparency because in a 21st century democracy it is only right that people can see how their Government are being influenced and by whom—which commercial forces lie behind particular decisions. That requires a register of all professional lobbyists. All lobbyists would then have to meet the same high standards, not only to create a level playing field within the industry, but to make sure that big money can no longer buy more influence than the rest of the population by using underhand techniques.

Instead of ensuring high standards in the lobbying industry, however, the Government would make the situation much worse. That is not simply my view. Mr George Kidd, acting chair of the UK Public Affairs Council, the body that runs the largest voluntary register of lobbyists, said that

“there is a risk that in doing something we do harm rather than good. We may end up with a less transparent system than we currently have if the definition is unchanged and”—

listen to this—

“we have a statutory register with very few names, if any, on it. People will be able to construct their business never to be on it.”

He suggests that we may have a register with no names on it—no lobbyists at all—and a register that is so full of loopholes that it is possible for anybody, with the smallest amount of ingenuity, to find a way to avoid getting on to the register. It would appear that the word “transparency” in the Bill’s title is a total misnomer.

If all that were not bad enough, Government amendment 76, in the name of the Leader of the House, rather remarkably succeeds in achieving what many think is impossible: making a bad Bill even worse. Despite comprehensive and uniquely united criticism and a consensus against the Bill, the Government have decided in their wisdom further to amend it, not in order to strengthen it, as lobbyists and experts have recommended, but rather further to weaken it. Rather than including companies and organisations that employ lobbyists on the register, as happens currently with the voluntary register, the Government have chosen to seek to limit the scope of the Bill further with this amendment by removing the need for a lobbyist’s employer to register. This is an important point, so I hope that the Committee is following the argument. For a register to bring meaningful transparency to the lobbying industry and to allow public scrutiny of lobbying, it must surely include, at the very least, all those who are doing lobbying. That surely must include the individual lobbyist’s employer. Yet that is precisely what the amendment seeks to avoid. Without the information on who is employing a particular lobbyist, it will be impossible to know which organisations or companies are lobbying at all, let alone what they are lobbying about or how often they are lobbying. The amendment is a retrograde step.

I have highlighted before how the Bill is weaker than the existing voluntary code, and the Government amendment is a case in point. The public or an organisation seeking the services of a lobbyist can currently search the voluntary registers in a way that discloses an organisation or employer’s client list, but the Government’s new proposals will remove that ability. The amendment removes the necessity for the lobbyists’ employers to be registered. We would know who the lobbyists were if they were consultant lobbyists, not if they were professional lobbyists, but we would not know who they were working for. We would not know who their colleagues were. Nor would we know which clients were being served by their colleagues. Nor would we know which other clients were employing the same company. We would not know the identity of the directors of the company. I would argue that knowing the names and identities of the directors of the company is quite important. Arguably, a company director may not themselves be a lobbyist, but it would be of interest to know who the directors of the company were which employed the lobbyists who were then on the register, and the amendment would exclude such a possibility.

Finally, we would not know who the shareholders of the company were, which leaves a massive opportunity for opacity. We would not know who the directors are or who owns the company, the name of the company or its registered address; we will be able to know simply that a lobbyist, Mr M. Smith, or whatever his name may be, is working out of Wimbledon. We will have no idea who his colleagues are, what company he works for, what its registered address is or who its shareholders and directors are. It really is a very bad and dangerous amendment. Rather than opening up the lobbying industry, the Government’s proposal would allow companies and organisations to hide behind the legislation.

[Grahame M. Morris]

The point about identifying who works for whom must be complicated by the fact that some consultancies are employed by a number of different companies. Could they disguise the fact, using zero-hours contracts, that they are not working exclusively for one employer?

[Jon Trickett]

Again, my hon. Friend makes an important point. The truth is that we will have no idea whom they are working for. We will know who their clients are, because that is required on the register, but we will have no idea who employs them. That seems to me to be a rather critical question to ask. For those people now on the voluntary register and operating to an ethical code, we know who their clients are and whom they work for, and the companies they work for also register. If the amendment is made, we will have no idea whom they are working for or who their other clients are. It seems to me that those on the Government Front Bench—I look to the Minister—should reflect on the amendment carefully before deciding whether to press it. It is very dangerous.

[Mr Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)]

Why does the hon. Gentleman think that those dangers would arise as a result of the proposed amendment? The word “person” would apply equally to an individual as to a company, so

“A person must not carry on the business of consultant lobbying unless… the person… is entered in the register”

could mean either a company or a human being. Indeed, it is likely to mean both, because if the person is carrying on business on behalf of an employer that is a company, he should register not only himself, but the company. I do not understand his objection, unless he has seen something in the Bill that I have not.

[Jon Trickett]

Let us look at the clause concerned. Clause 1 currently states:

“A person must not carry on the business of consultant lobbying unless—

(a) the person, or

(b) if the person is an employee, the person’s employer,

is entered in the register of consultant lobbyists.”

Amendment 76 would exclude paragraph (b), so I deduce from that that the Government do not wish to have on the register the employer of the person who is being registered. If I was incorrect in my interpretation, no purpose whatsoever would be served by that deletion, or by its inclusion in the Bill in the first place.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

Is that not the entire point? There would be no need to specify the person’s employer if they could stand alone. If a person is included, what was the point of putting that in the Bill in the first place? It is being deleted specifically to exclude the corporate entity. It is as plain as a pikestaff.

[Jon Trickett]

rose—

[Mr Cox]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jon Trickett]

The hon. and learned Gentleman will have a chance to make a contribution if he catches your eye, Ms Primarolo.

The point is this: we will have the same individual, Mr Smith from Wimbledon, and we will know who his clients are. Under the Bill, as drafted, we will know who his employer is. If amendment 76 is made, we will not know who his employer is, so there will be a gaping hole in our knowledge. It might not matter so much for us, but there are tens of millions of people outside in the country who want to know why the Government abandoned legislation on, say, plain tobacco packaging, or why they suddenly decided to proceed with the privatisation of our national health service.

Amendment 76 would have a dramatic impact on the rest of the Bill, rendering parts of it entirely redundant. Clause 4, for example, requires a lobbyist captured by the Bill to register the address of their main place of business or, if there is no such place, their home address. The individual lobbyist’s home address could be registered and we would not know their place of employment. Yet clause 4 has been drafted precisely to attempt to ascertain where that person would be working from. Again, the Government amendment imperils the very principle of transparency that the Bill claims to advocate.

[Mr Cox]

rose—

[Jon Trickett]

I shall not give way again on this point.

In addition, if only individuals are required to register, there will be considerable risk of a knock-on impact on the Government’s ability to raise the necessary funding for the register. It will be interesting to hear what the Minister will say about that.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)]

Under the hon. Gentleman’s approach to lobbying, how many companies would be on the register and how many contacts would have to be logged each year? What would be the cost of running his alternative?

[Jon Trickett]

This is a £2 billion industry, and what we propose would cover almost all the activity that we can identify in it. It would not need to be costly; we have sat down with the industry, taken their advice and listened to their criticisms. They have told me that to complete a form of the kind proposed would take only a few moments a year and dramatically open up the whole industry. We will come to the register when we discuss other clauses. I am sure that you, Ms Primarolo, will tell me that I cannot pursue a matter that is the subject of later amendments. We will come back to the costs of the register.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

rose—

[Jon Trickett]

I will give way to my hon. Friend and then wind up.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I noticed that the Minister did not respond to my hon. Friend’s important point that 95% of lobbying activity will not be covered by the Bill. Is my hon. Friend aware that the Public Relations Consultants Association goes even further, specifying that the Bill would cover as little as 1% of overall lobbying?

[Jon Trickett]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is of course right. The whole industry agrees without exception and universally—there is total consensus—that this Bill simply does not meet the challenge of the day. The industry wants a register. It wants transparency because it lives in the shadows. Many professional and ethical lobbyists feel that they are being criticised unfairly. They also feel that they have been undermined by a small minority of lobbyists who are behaving unethically and do not register on any of the voluntary registers. They want a level playing field—they are right to do so—and the public want to know how decisions are made.

The Chartered Institute of Public Relations summed up the situation perfectly when it said:

“The Government’s lack of engagement with the industry is reflected in a poorly drafted and narrow definition which does not accurately reflect the work undertaken by lobbyists, including those the Government perceive to be acting in the capacity of a consultant lobbyist.”

Let me return to the problem of who will be caught under the Government’s definitions and who will be excluded. It is reported that in 2011 the British financial sector spent £92 million on lobbying politicians and regulators. Documents have now come to light that suggest that they secured a series of governmental financial measures that were very favourable to the finance industry. However, all this lobbying activity was carried out by in-house lobbyists and therefore would not count within the definition of “lobbying” that the Government have sought to deploy in the Bill.

[Tom Brake]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jon Trickett]

No—I am about to finish.

The consequence is that the public would have no knowledge of how any of these decisions were made. That is why we have tabled our amendments.

[Mrs Main]

It is important that we are having the Committee stage of this Bill on the Floor of the House because we can, I hope, bring consensus to the matter. Lobbying affects Members on both sides of the House and affects all of us as constituency Members of Parliament, so it is important that we get the Bill right or there will have been little purpose to having it.

I rise to speak to my new clause 5. I have a deal of sympathy with amendments 9 and 48, which seek to capture some of the concerns that many of us have about making sure that the field of lobbying is fair and transparent and that the definition of “lobbying” captures all the activities that most people would recognise as such. The new clause refers to activities that any “reasonable person would assume” to be activities

“intended to have the effect”

of lobbying. That is important, because lobbying is a very subtle, even devious, art. Pressure can be brought to bear with a view to setting off a favourable reaction or having a desired effect. We have often heard the aphorism, “Does the flap of a butterfly’s wings set off a tornado elsewhere?” A lobbyist would certainly hope that it does. We have heard about the subtle art of making sure that people are in the right place at the right time to catch somebody’s eye to have that casual conversation. As the Bill stands, none of this is captured, and I am very concerned about that. The public are rightly sceptical about why, despite campaigns and efforts by ordinary people, so many decisions seem to go the way of the big developer, the big money or the big organisation, while the little’s person’s voice gets lost. Many of us would believe that the answer is powerful, behind-the-scenes lobbying.

I hope that we can find a way forward through this morass of amendments, many of which seek to achieve the same thing. I do not hold mine so dear that I would not support somebody’s else’s if it brought greater clarity to the Bill, because that is what this Committee stage is about. I want to make sure that up-front lobbying by charities and organisations that are captured by the Bill and, indeed, logged on departmental websites, is seen as fine. We need to address the informal, behind-the-scenes lobbying over the cup of coffee, the glass of wine or the lunch. That is the lobbyist’s art. These connections may be made by people whose role is a lobbyist and who use personal and private connections to call in favours, gain access or put their point of view. Surely that is what people would hope a Bill such as this should be about, and I hope that it is what it will be about.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

Of course I have read the amendments on pages 658 and 659, but I think they would have exactly the opposite effect from what the hon. and learned Gentleman says. The concept of a non-lobbying activity is as interesting as the concept of a lobbying activity. That is why I think this Bill provides so many grey areas, and that, in turn, is why I can see that it would recommend itself to lawyers—to lawyers, I repeat.

[Jon Trickett]

The hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) is a lawyer.

[Chris Bryant]

Yes, that is the point I am making. Because of those grey areas, a great deal of business is likely to come from this proposed legislation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jon Trickett Excerpts

Wednesday 19th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Miss Smith]

My hon. Friend makes a good point about the value for money that the state would seek to achieve at all levels. Alongside that, our reforms include measures to build the capability of the third sector, which I am sure we would all want to see strongly succeed.

[Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)]

Is it clear that not only have the Government failed to deliver more public sector contracts to charities, but after three years in office the big society project has now become a shrivelled society, except in one area—charitable activity and supporting people whom the hon. Lady’s Government have driven into poverty? More than 13 million people are now in poverty, two thirds of whom are in work.

[Miss Smith]

I thought the hon. Gentleman would welcome the notion that more charities are getting involved and more people are volunteering. Surely that is a good thing.

[Jon Trickett]

It is a sad thing. In the past year, the number of people dependent on food banks tripled to almost 350,000, of whom—listen to this figure—126,889 are children. There is no doubt that the Minister is a decent human being, but did she really come into politics to increase the scale of the third sector on the back of a disgraceful rise in the number of children in poverty? Is she ashamed of that record?

[Miss Smith]

What I am ashamed of is the hon. Gentleman’s attempt to turn an important issue into a political football. Like many others in the House, I have stood alongside excellent volunteers at food banks in my constituency. I applaud their efforts, their goodheartedness and their contribution, but I do not applaud his blindness to the notion that the use of food banks in fact soared under the previous Labour Government.