Committee on Standards: Decision of the House

Paula Barker Excerpts

Monday 8th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) for securing this debate.

It saddens me that we find ourselves here today having to debate the consequences of the decision that the majority of those on the Government Benches took last week regarding the former Member for North Shropshire. Such a debate should be unnecessary, but sadly, due to the actions of last week, the consequences beyond this place are very clear: further erosion of public trust in our politics and its representatives, a real anger that it is one rule for the hard-working majority and another for politicians, and a growing sense of apathy that weakens our democracy and our institutions and makes us all poorer.

I have since wondered what my own constituents would think—indeed, do think, because many have contacted me—such as those facing fire and rehire, those struggling to make ends meet on universal credit, and those waiting on access to decent social care. The adage that yesterday’s news will be today’s chip paper will not hold true. So long as this Prime Minister remains in place, I fear that we will return to this dark place again and again. The substantial majority that the Government won at the last general election does not make them beyond reproach, it does not make the Prime Minister beyond reproach, and it does not make any hon. or right hon. Member in this place beyond reproach. The younger, newer intake on the Government Benches probably understand that. Like me, they probably thought they had entered a 1990s-time warp last week. When it came to the crunch, the old boys’ network reigned supreme. Frankly, I am fed up with this place lurching from one scandal to another. So too are my constituents, who expect better. Now is the time to draw a line in the sand.

In my opinion, we should prioritise two things, along with those outlined by the Leader of the Opposition. First, we should make corruption in public office a criminal offence that applies to any MP who falls short of the standards expected of them. Secondly, we should ban any MP from having a second job, unless that is required to maintain professional accreditations.

From where I come from and for the people I represent, an MP’s salary is more than enough to live on and, frankly, it is a full-time job if we are doing it properly. If the salary is not enough for the privileged class of MPs such as the likes of the former Member for North Shropshire—on any of the Benches but particularly the Government Benches—then to quote Lord Tebbit, “Get on your bike,” find another job and leave, because no one is forcing you to stay. If we do not all act, I fear that public hostility towards all Members will only get worse. After all, it only takes a few rotten apples to spoil the whole barrel. In the public’s eyes, everyone in this place is in the barrel.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

That is a very interesting response, because it still does not answer the question. The reality is—[Interruption.] No, with great respect, if we look at appendix 2 of the Committee’s report, there were 17 witness statements on Mr Paterson’s behalf set out in rigorous detail. In relation to milk and food safety, there was witness evidence from the chief vet, National Milk Laboratories and the former chair of the Food Standards Agency. That confirmed that within the framework of exemptions for Members’ actions in the public interest, the former Member’s actions made milk safer. On the question of the contamination of a ham product, Professor Chris Elliott, in unchallenged evidence, made it clear that what the former Member revealed was the worst case that that professor had seen in 35 years. On both matters, those witnesses’ genuinely expert opinions were not followed in establishing the facts and in justification of the former Member’s defence.

On the question of natural justice and of witness statements and evidence, it has been established over and again in the courts that every court or tribunal is obliged to accept and follow unchallenged witness evidence.

[Paula Barker]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Sir William Cash]

No, I do not have time and we need to move on.

It is established in the recent Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme that a judge must be—and now will be, as far as I can judge—embedded in the procedure. An investigatory panel would be set up only infrequently, in cases of serious contested issues of fact that would not and could not be properly decided, and where the test of natural justice would be failed unless the Member was given the opportunity to call witnesses and/or to cross-examine witnesses supporting the complaint.

That is made abundantly clear by the 2003 Committee report that I have already referred to—that Committee actually had eight Lib Dem and Labour members and only three Conservatives—so why a panel was never set up is a complete mystery. I heard the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) say that he was a stickler for parliamentary procedure and due process in Parliament, so why did he decline to invoke the natural justice provisions, including examination of witnesses, under his own Standing Orders and, furthermore, consistent with the tests of fairness set out by the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege?

Not only does every disciplinary committee in the land and other courts of justice and tribunals of every kind have rules of natural justice, but they have the right to appeal to the courts for judicial review. Members of Parliament cannot do so because of article 9 of the Bill of Rights, which includes things such as equality of arms, examination of witnesses and no delay. The reality is that in this instance—in this serious, contested case—there has been a failure of natural justice.

I do not know, and now nobody will ever know, what the investigatory panel would have discovered, because it was never invoked. It is most regrettable and a deep contribution to this tragedy—it is the centre of gravity of this problem—that the rules of natural justice, which are prescribed under the Standing Orders, were not applied. I stand by that, because it is evident on the face of the facts and the law.

Covid-19: NAO Report on Government Procurement

Paula Barker Excerpts

Wednesday 9th December 2020 Westminster Hall

[Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)]

Thank you, Ms Eagle. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) on securing this important debate. It is, of course, regrettable that this comes on the back of the National Audit Office investigation into Government procurement during the pandemic. The report itself, as hon. Members have pointed out and no doubt will continue to do so during this debate, is critical of the Government’s failure to guarantee transparency that should provide absolute confidence in the use of public funds.

I am sure Members from across the House will sympathise with the hand the Government have been dealt this year. No one could have anticipated a crisis on the scale we have witnessed, and it is natural that mistakes have been made along the way. However, in the interests of accountability, transparency and overall good governance, it is wholly wrong for a Government to hide behind such unfortunate circumstances while dismissing the concerns of Opposition politicians. We have asked probing questions—and yes, levelled criticisms—while seeking to provide appropriate scrutiny of and seek clarity on the decisions made in Whitehall offices. Such endeavours are prerequisites of a healthy parliamentary debate.

Despite that, it seems that the level of immaturity and arrogance that has infected the Conservative party of 2020 is tantamount to that of a petulant schoolchild: on one hand demanding praise and pats on the head for the things it gets right, while at the same time demonstrating outright dismissal when pulled up on its litany of failures. Most of my constituents work in the private sector and their livelihoods depend on it, so it is pretty galling to hear, repeatedly, the superficial retort that our opposition is based on some false hatred of anything beyond the public sector.

In a feat of human ingenuity and brilliance, we now have a vaccine being rolled out across the country. At the same time, a week is barely seen out without yet another story of Government cronyism emerging; companies with no track record or experience in delivering comprehensive outcomes on anything are awarded contracts to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ cash. The only thing the public can visibly note as the primary commissioning criterion is the obvious and apparent connections to the governing party.

Only last week, a Government Minister, Lord Bethell, was asked directly whether the Government intended to publish a list of companies that were contracted to supply PPE as a result of the high-priority lane. Owing to the so-called “commercial implications”, the Government made clear their intention not to publish the list of suppliers. That sort of culture and practice has been heavily criticised by the NAO.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paula Barker Excerpts

Wednesday 4th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Yes indeed, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on lobbying for Middlesbrough in the way that he has. I can tell him that Tees Valley is already getting £126 million from the local growth fund. The devolution deal will mean £450 million extra for transport, skills and employment, and Middlesbrough will get at least £500,000 from the towns fund, thanks at least in part to his lobbying.

[Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)]

May I join in the congratulations to you, Mr Speaker, on your first anniversary? Private care homes such as St Martin’s in my constituency of Liverpool, Wavertree, are closing because under-occupancy is making them financially unviable, but moving people into new care settings, especially during a pandemic, is full of risk. With the winter care plan falling short, will the Prime Minister commit now to providing additional funding specifically for social care, to help local authorities meet their statutory responsibilities and to prevent further care home closures?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady is right to draw attention to the issue. In addition to the £600 million care home action plan that we announced earlier this year, we will put further funding into care homes in the short term, but also making sure that we have long-term reform of that sector. As I said to the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) earlier, we will bring out specific guidance to enable people to visit loved ones in the way that they should and they must.

External Private Contractors: Government Use and Employment

Paula Barker Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2020 Westminster Hall

[Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government use of external private contractors and effect on employment.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. The question before the House is the use of external private contractors and its effect on employment. I am grateful to hon. Members for participating in this important debate. The recent pandemic has shone a spotlight on public sector procurement and the awarding of contracts. Although it is incumbent on the Government to ensure value for money for the taxpayer and quality of service delivery, they also have a duty, whether they like it or not, to those workers tasked with delivering services on which both Government and public rely. I believe that, on all fronts, the Government are failing in their responsibilities in that regard and so are failing taxpayers and workers alike.

Recent examples include the likes of Serco, which has received beyond hefty sums of taxpayer cash to run a failed test and trace system. The revolving door of Government, ex-Ministers and outsourcing companies is pernicious in every sense and does little to instil public confidence in a method of service delivery that is fundamentally flawed. I hope that other Members will speak more on this Government failure as the debate progresses. They will no doubt highlight other examples of failed contracts worth hundreds of millions of pounds.

I have chosen to concentrate on the example of civil service facilities management work in this speech, but if we substituted for the civil service nearly every NHS trust, many councils and other public sector bodies, my observations would unfortunately still be valid. The experience of the civil service is generally the same as that across the public sector, but I particularly wanted to concentrate on the civil service, as I am hoping that Ministers will now start to consider the outsourcing model itself.

It goes without saying that if workers win improvements through union action, that immediately has an impact on the outsource company’s bottom line. Those companies, especially where there is no trade union recognition, then tend to try to recoup lost revenue by cutting staff or their working hours. There are natural limits to productivity gains made through cutting staff. Inherently, the model is unstable and leads to companies running into financial difficulties.

Let us look at the Mitie-Interserve merger. My argument is well illustrated by the announcement in June that Mitie and Interserve’s facilities management arm are to merge at the end of the year, subject to shareholders approving a £271 million share purchase. In reality, Mitie is taking over Interserve. Both companies hold a number of civil service and public sector contracts, worth more than £2 billion of public money. Mitie’s biggest contract is for the provision of in-country and overseas escorting for the Home Office. That contract is worth £514 million. Interserve’s biggest contract is the Department for Work and Pensions estate and facilities management contract, worth £225 million.

Interserve has clearly been in financial difficulty for some time. Last year, it went into pre-pack administration. At that time, the Labour party called for a temporary ban on Interserve bidding for public contracts, but that call was not heeded. We know that Interserve was awarded a five-year facilities management contract worth £670 million by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in early August 2018. Shortly after that contract was awarded, Interserve moved to cut staff, and Public and Commercial Services union members went into a long-running dispute over job cuts, pay, sick pay entitlement and trade union recognition. The company issued profit warnings in March 2015, then two more in 2016, and another as recently as 2018.

Mitie has been involved in multiple disputes with its employees: we can cite the Royal Opera House, the Houses of Parliament, First Great Western, London Underground, and various NHS hospitals. It was subject to an investigation into its MiHomecare business by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs for paying its employees less than the minimum wage. Industrial relations in Mitie are so bad that in March 2019, Unite the union said that it should be barred from acquiring contracts due to its woeful treatment of its workforce. That Unite warning is interesting, as even a few months ago it was clear that Mitie and Interserve were considering a deal.

This is where the similarities with Carillion might be interesting to consider, so what can we learn from the lessons of Carillion? The report of the joint inquiry by the Select Committees on Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and on Work and Pensions recommended

“that the Government immediately reviews the role and responsibilities of its Crown Representatives in the light of the Carillion case. This review should consider whether devoting more resources to liaison with strategic suppliers would offer better value for the taxpayer.”

I do not know whether that recommendation was acted on in relation to facilities management contracts in the civil service, but it does not appear to have been exercised in this instance to scrutinise Mitie and Interserve.

Moving on to the issue of inequality in pay and employment terms, each civil service department has to comply with the public sector equality duty. The civil service does not have to award contracts where only the minimum wage is paid, statutory sick pay is given, and trade union recognition is not a right. It could choose to make the payment of the real living wage, full sick pay from day one, and trade union recognition a condition of the contract, as many local authorities have begun to do.

Research carried out by the PCS union shows that only two of the 23 ministerial Government Departments pay the real living wage to their facilities management outsourced workers, and no Department includes a policy of paying more than the statutory sick pay as a requirement of awarding a contract. Departments know that in their major urban areas, cleaners, security guards and so on are predominantly of black, Asian and minority ethnic origin, and nearly all cleaners are women regardless of where they work. From the observations of the PCS union, as relayed to me, senior managers and certainly Ministers believe that outsourcing work means they have no responsibility to those facilities management workers, whether in terms of pay, terms and conditions of employment, equality of treatment, or health and safety.

If we look at that indifference to health and safety obligations, we find that even though health and safety laws put clear obligations on civil service departments and facilities management companies working in the same buildings to co-operate and co-ordinate their health and safety at work—that is, regulation 11 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999—in reality we have had immense difficulty in getting the civil service to comply with the law. That indifference leads to what we see as a grotesque admission by the Cabinet Office, which we take as a proxy for the civil service, that it does not know how many facilities management workers have died due to covid, let alone their ethnicity. We know that at least six facilities management outsourced staff have died owing to the virus, all of them of BAME origin.

Turning to the issue of sick pay, in a recent survey—again conducted by PCS—86% of outsourced facilities management workers who responded said that they had often continued to work when they had been unwell because they could not afford to take time off sick.

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

I thank my Unison comrade for giving way. To support that particular proposition, there is a Unison briefing that shows that in schools in England, many of the private companies are only paying statutory sick pay. Does the hon. Lady agree that this puts people in the position of having to choose between statutory sick pay and going into work, which is more likely to spread the virus?

[Paula Barker]

Sadly, I concur with the hon. Gentleman’s observations. Covid-19 has brought into sharp focus the inequality between the sick pay provisions of civil servants and those of outsourced workers employed on civil service contracts.

Through PCS talks during covid-19, most civil service departments adopted a policy of paying their outsourced staff full pay for covid-19-related absences until the end of June 2020. From July 2020, Cabinet Office guidance was updated to allow the arrangement to continue where appropriate. As part of PCS’s campaign to defend and extend the right to full sick pay, it wrote to the Prime Minister in June, setting out the case for all outsourced Government workers to be paid full sick pay from day one. Disappointingly, there has been no response.

Does outsourcing facilities management services achieve social value? The simple answer is no. Section 1(3) of the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 requires a public sector authority to consider how a procurement

“might improve the economic, social and environmental well-being of the relevant area”.

When awarding central Government contracts, the Cabinet Office is obliged to consider the wider social benefits of procurement to ensure that cost does not override other Government considerations.

I want to take the opportunity to thank you, Mr Pritchard, for overseeing today’s debate. Let us move forward by initiating an open, frank and honest debate, with which I hope the Government will actively engage in the coming period. Value for money is not always delivered by the current procurement and outsourcing arrangements. For a Government who claim to pride themselves on hating waste, the reality is that nothing could be further from the truth.

The Government should be ambitious and see what services can now be brought back in-house. Fundamentally, the truth remains that when workers are paid properly and valued, productivity is better. After a long, difficult year for so many workers, the Government have often waxed lyrical. It is high time that politicians clearly show whose back they have—the cleaners, the contact tracers, the security staff and all manner of low-paid staff, or the directors of outsourcing companies.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

I am going to set an informal time limit of three minutes, but if colleagues could be a bit quicker we might have some time for a two-minute reply later. Obviously, there are five minutes for the Scottish National party spokesman and the shadow Minister, and 10 minutes for the Minister. Thank you for your co-operation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paula Barker]

I thank you, Mr Pritchard, for chairing this important debate today, and I thank all hon. Members who have spoken and the Minister for her considered approach.

The Minister said that the Government are the custodian of public money, and that it is important to retain public trust. I reiterate that public trust is at an all-time low, particularly in my constituency. I would be grateful if the Minister can take up the very important issues raised today.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Government use of external private contractors and effect on employment.

Covid-19 Update

Paula Barker Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I agree totally with my hon. Friend, and it should be Think Clean week in Watford and across the whole of the UK.

[Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)]

Today the Government have placed Merseyside into tier 3 lockdown. For 10 long years, my city has been under the boot of Tory austerity, and now the Prime Minister intends to shut down our economy while keeping furlough support at 67%, which has all the hallmarks of once again placing our city into a state of managed decline. Will he listen to our metro Mayor, our city Mayor and local MPs and stump up the cash for a furlough scheme based on 80% of wages, without the reliance, as he keeps saying, on universal credit? If it was the right thing to do in March, it is the right thing to do now.

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to Steve Rotheram and other leaders in that area for the support they are giving for the measures we are putting in place. I think that they understand the real dilemma that we face, which is that we must get the virus down but we must also keep the economy going and support jobs. That is what we are doing.