Oral Answers to Questions

Jon Trickett Excerpts

Wednesday 28th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chloe Smith]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has been clear that, although she does not have any plans to provide for publication of the pre-2017 data, we will look to review the broader framework once those arrangements have bedded in. What I would say is that she and her predecessor took those decisions because the majority of parties in Northern Ireland agreed at the time that it was the right thing to do, and, indeed, the Labour Front Bench team, before it was against it, was for it.

[Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)]

Last month, access to members of the British Cabinet was auctioned off for around £55,000 per Minister—although the Secretary of State for International Trade was worth only £2,000. The Minister’s job in the Cabinet Office is to ensure “propriety, ethics and transparency” in government; does she agree that auctioning off access to Ministers undermines confidence in democracy by giving the impression of a Government for sale? Will she take steps immediately to secure transparency and propriety in all such matters in future?

[Chloe Smith]

As I said in answer to a previous question, all donations are registered in accordance with the law. I appreciate that in recent days some points have been raised; indeed, some were raised in the Chamber yesterday, after your decision to grant an emergency debate, Mr Speaker. There are a lot of allegations in the air at the moment, but what the Government have to do is deal with the law as it stands and allow the correct bodies to carry out their investigations.

EU Referendum: Electoral Law

Jon Trickett Excerpts

Tuesday 27th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this debate. We have heard a number of important contributions, and it is difficult to disagree with any of them, given that nobody on the Government Benches actually bothered to make a speech, although they attempted to prick the arguments from time to time.

However we voted in the referendum and whatever our views now, the recent revelations in connection with the Brexit campaign raise serious questions about the functioning of our democracy and go to the heart of who we are as a country. First let me say, however, that we would not even be holding this debate were it not for the hard work, courage, diligence and honesty of journalists in the media.

Theirs is a profession that politicians rarely thank. The same applies to whistleblowers. However uncomfortable it may be for the powerful in our society, or for any of us, it is clearly essential to the functioning of a democracy that we protect the roles of both journalists and whistleblowers. It demeans our politics to attempt to destroy a whistleblower’s case not by addressing the matters that were being raised, but by insinuating that there was a malicious personal motive on the part of the whistleblower. It is especially sinister—indeed, it is shameful—when those insinuations emerge from Downing Street and when their source is defended by the Prime Minister personally. After all, the Government have a clear policy on whistleblowing. Their website states:

“As a whistleblower you’re protected by law—you shouldn’t be treated unfairly or lose your job because you ‘blow the whistle’.”

But Mr Sanni has been treated unfairly and in a way that is absolutely disgraceful.

Democracy depends on more than just journalists and whistleblowers. It needs transparency and a rules-based level playing field. If those attributes are missing, our democracy will be in severe danger and I believe that it may well be. The stakes have never been higher because the referendum itself was a major turning point in the country’s history. Moreover, the House will not forget that the Leave campaign was headed by two distinguished Members of this House, who arguably owe their membership of the British Cabinet to the role that they played in the Brexit campaign. To the victor belong the spoils, as they say.

It is too soon yet to draw any firm conclusions that Vote Leave broke the rules, but there are clearly reasons to worry. Before reciting some of the known facts, I remind the House that the law on referendums, which we passed, does not prevent donations from one campaign body to another, but it does forbid collusion between them, because otherwise there would not be a level playing field between the two sides in the referendum. If one campaign exceeds the spending cap by deliberately and surreptitiously spawning satellite or puppet operations, that crucial principle of equity between the two parties is lost.

Let me briefly list the facts that we do now know, some of which have already been mentioned. We know that Vote Leave raised more money than the statutory spending cap. We know that it donated surplus funds to other campaigning bodies, including a youth body called BeLeave. We know that the two campaigns shared the same building, and that there was a revolving door for staff between the two organisations. We know that they both used the same small Canada-based company, AIQ, whose purpose seems to have been to harvest data from social media in order to target Leave messaging to British voters. By a strange coincidence, the Leave.EU campaign—led by Messrs Farage and Banks, among others—used the very same small Canadian firm.

Incidentally, at least two other bodies, which have been mentioned briefly today, received donations from Vote Leave. One is Veterans for Britain and the other is the Democratic Unionist party, none of whose members are in the Chamber. Another remarkable coincidence is that both bodies reportedly used that same firm based in Canada, AIQ, whose premises are, I am told, above a shop.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jon Trickett]

I will, very briefly.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned Veterans for Britain. Is he aware that that organisation consistently gives evidence to the Defence Committee and that—this is relevant to my earlier comments—there is now grave concern about the links between national security and this very debate?

[Jon Trickett]

I think that the hon. Gentleman’s point speaks for itself.

So far, so good. Those are the facts as I understand them. Until last week, there was evidence that the various Leave campaigns rubbed shoulders with each other, but no evidence that there was specific collusion. This is where the recent revelations by the whistleblower that have given rise to this debate change the nature of our understanding of what happened. Mr Sanni was right at the core of the BeLeave organisation from its inception; indeed, I understand he was the treasurer, although he says he never saw the money pass through the accounts. He had previously worked in the Vote Leave organisation and says he was directed by it to join BeLeave. He goes on to say that BeLeave was established by Vote Leave and the money it donated was in effect under the control not of BeLeave but of senior members of the Vote Leave staff, and he argues that the money allegedly donated by Vote Leave to BeLeave was actually directed by Vote Leave, to be spent on AIQ. If these allegations of collusion are true, they amount to a serious breach of the regulations and a de facto fusion of the two campaign groups, and one has to assume that under those circumstances there was an illegal spend by Vote Leave-BeLeave of about 10% of the total statutory cap.

That was illegal, yet a further allegation has been made. It is said that after the referendum Vote Leave staff destroyed or doctored the electronic data files they held in order to remove any reference to an interconnection between the two campaigns. It is therefore hard to conclude anything other than that this was a puppet campaign designed to avoid electoral law. If there was nothing to hide, why would they destroy or change the files?

Given the historic scale of the referendum and what it has presaged for our country, we must have a proper and urgent investigation, but the truth is that the House is not the proper place to carry it out, and let us be blunt about the reason why: it is because the Government are in this up to their neck. Two Cabinet Ministers fronted the organisation. They sit here week after week, the Bonnie and Clyde of Brexit—I will leave it to the House to decide who is Bonnie and who is Clyde. They had a pantomime swag bag allegedly full of £350 million a week for the NHS, which, as we know, turned out to be completely untrue. Meanwhile, the sheriff herself, in the shape of the Prime Minister, has publicly defended her own political secretary after his personalised attack on the whistleblower. They cannot represent themselves as honest brokers, so who will step up to carry out the investigation into these new revelations?

It must be the Electoral Commission and, if necessary, the police. At present, however, the Electoral Commission is under-resourced and lacks the necessary powers to carry out the task. After all, the situation last week with the Information Commissioner revealed how limited its powers and resources are in trying to get access to Cambridge Analytica files.

We on this side of the House demand that the Government recuse themselves from looking into these matters and commission a wholly independent investigation instead. The Electoral Commission should be given the extra powers and resources it needs to follow the evidence wherever it takes it. It should then report to this House and to the public directly, so that there is no suspicion of interference by interested parties in powerful places.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant. We have seen the Prime Minister beholden to the extreme wing of her party, who are running wild and unchecked. If she wants to stand up for our democracy and show she has nothing to hide, she will surely now work with any investigation as a matter of urgency.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Capita

Jon Trickett Excerpts

Thursday 1st February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am keen to accommodate the substantial interest in this matter, but may I remind the House that there is the business question to follow, and thereafter two debates to take place under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee? I am anxious that time for those debates should not be artificially truncated, so pithy questions and pithy answers, please, and we will make progress.

[Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)]

I will take your advice, Mr Speaker.

Only two weeks ago, I warned that there was a danger that this whole outsourcing problem would become a set of dominoes, with one falling after another. I believe the House will conclude that the Government’s behaviour in response, and the Minister’s response today, has been marked by indifference to corporate mismanagement, incompetence in office and complacency in the face of a crisis.

The Minister will not tell the House, but I will: Capita was given 154 Government contracts last year. Only last week, Carillion contracts were being re-brokered to Capita, yet the company was clearly in trouble. Share values were plummeting and profit warnings were being issued. There was short selling on the stock market and allegations against Capita of fraud in the handling of public contracts. Yesterday, Capita’s total value on the exchange was barely much more than its total debt. The company is in serious trouble. It is a familiar tale of woe, with strong echoes of Carillion.

We want to know that the Government’s contingency plans in relation to Capita will assure jobs for current employees and protect the pensions of those employees and the pensions of the public sector workers that the company is managing. Will the Minister confirm that the public services that Capita manages will be protected in the event of a corporate disaster? Does the Government’s contingency plan allow for that? What will be the common impact of the problems at Carillion, and now Capita, on the spiralling costs of HS2? Does the Minister agree with the Opposition that not a single penny should be used to prop up badly managed outsourcing companies?

The Government are blind to the corporate greed of these outsourcing companies. Does the Minister agree that it is clear that, as the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee), said only the other day, the Government should be driven by the “evidence, not dogma” on outsourcing?

[Oliver Dowden]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions, the core of which was about support for outsourcing companies. He said we should not provide a penny more to prop up badly managed outsourcing companies. Indeed, that is exactly what we did in respect of Carillion. We took the decision that this was a private company and should bear the loss. That is why shareholders in Carillion are unlikely to get more than a few pennies in the pound back for their investment. The private sector has taken the risk, but the job of the Government is to ensure the continued delivery of those public services—to ensure that the dinner ladies get paid, that the hospitals get cleaned, and that the railways continue to be built. That is exactly what we did in respect of Carillion and it is exactly what our contingencies involve for all our strategic suppliers. That is the test for the Government: can we ensure the continued delivery of those public services, and can those public services continue to be delivered?

The hon. Gentleman made a point about pensions. The fact that Capita has embarked on this course of restructuring means that it is effectively choosing to switch resources away from the continued payment of dividends and towards pension funds. That should give pensioners confidence in respect of that pension fund. He also asked about jobs, and again, the restructuring can give confidence about the continuing delivery of those jobs.

I keep coming back to the same point. This is a private company and the interest of the Government is to ensure the continued delivery of those public services, and those public services continue to be delivered. That takes me back to Labour’s position. What Labour seems to be suggesting is that the private sector has no role in public life, and that the level of small and medium-sized businesses working for the Government should be zero. If that is not Labour Members’ position, are they going to tell us where they choose to draw the line? Labour has gone from pumping billions of pounds into private companies for the delivery of public services when Gordon Brown and Tony Blair were Prime Minister, to saying that they should not have a penny. Some clarity would be helpful, because otherwise people may draw the conclusion that there is more than an element of opportunism here.

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.