Centenary of the Armistice

Debate between Lord Beamish and Kevin Brennan

Tuesday 6th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Brennan]

I am glad that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has had the opportunity to put that on the record.

It is difficult to envisage the scale of the scourge that Lloyd George talked about. Four million men served in the British Army, alongside 3 million soldiers and labourers from what was then the British empire and Commonwealth. Some 1.27 million served from India alone, as well as over 10,000 from Jamaica. There were over 10 million military and 7 million civilian fatalities worldwide. Around 1 million British military personnel were killed, and the fighting stretched from Flanders to Gallipoli, from Pilckem Ridge to Palestine.

On this centenary of Armistice Day, we ponder three central thoughts. First, we honour the memories of those who fought and died. Secondly, we are solemnly grateful that the terrible tragedy came to an end. Thirdly, we are committed to preventing such devastation from happening again. I have been present in this Chamber when the House has been in a different mood—when the drums of war have been sounding. We should remember this moment when, inevitably, such events present themselves to us again. We should remember this kind of debate, as well as the mood the House sometimes gets into when we hear the sound of the drums of war.

These moments of commemoration are important, and I thank all those involved: the Imperial War Museum, the BBC, the Royal British Legion, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission—we have heard so much about the commission this afternoon—and the Heritage Lottery Fund. The fund held an important reception last week, and the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), the Prime Minister’s envoy, was present. It really was a testament to the hard work done by him and by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) on the commemorations.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I think my hon. Friend has missed them by mistake, but he also needs to thank the parliamentary authorities, which have done an excellent job. The Library and the archivists have shown the history not only of Members of both Houses who fought and died in the war, but of the Clerks and other staff who served.

[Kevin Brennan]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I acknowledge the work he has done with the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, including with me in Wales; we did some work a few years ago on restoring some of the graves in my Cardiff West constituency.

Members will know that the legacy of the first world war resonates in all our communities. Most cities, towns and villages in the UK have a war memorial, and we will all be visiting those war memorials this weekend to lay wreathes and pay tribute to those who left our communities more than 100 years ago and did not return. I will attend the Welsh national wreath-laying ceremony in Cardiff, and a special service of commemoration at Llandaff cathedral in my constituency. Baroness Finlay of Llandaff and I will both lay wreathes at the war memorial in Llandaff city on Friday.

Every community has its own first world war story, and as many others have done, I will briefly pay tribute to those from my Cardiff West constituency whose courage has become part of our collective memory. On 7 July 1916, the 16th Battalion of the Welsh Regiment, known as the Cardiff City Battalion, fought at Mametz wood alongside other Welsh units as part of the 38th Division, which was devised by Prime Minister David Lloyd George and included the Welsh Regiment, the South Wales Borderers and the Royal Welch Fusiliers.

The Cardiff City Battalion was exposed to heavy machine-gun fire, and more than 150 men died, with many more injured. Welsh rugby internationals Dick Thomas and John Williams were among the dead. A survivor, William Joshua, recalled:

“On the Somme, the Cardiff City Battalion died.”

It might be of interest to you, Mr Speaker, that Fred Keenor, who subsequently captained Cardiff City football club when they defeated Arsenal in the 1927 FA cup final, was injured at the battle of the Somme, and it very nearly ended his football career.

Autism Community: Mental Health and Suicide

Debate between Lord Beamish and Kevin Brennan

Thursday 30th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

And employment, as my hon. Friend says from a sedentary position.

There is another big problem that a lot of individuals with autism encounter. They go through the school system. Education finishes and they transition into work. I know of quite a few examples of this from my constituency. A lot of these young people, who are perfectly capable of engaging in some type of employment, seem to get lost in the system. The pathway that the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow mentioned must therefore continue from diagnosis all the way through an individual’s life and involve a cross-section of services, not just health. To get that idea hard-wired into the system, the Government must make sure that, from Cabinet Committee level downwards, consideration of mental health and mental wellbeing forms part of the process of policy making in each Department. The last Labour Government did something similar with veterans.

[Kevin Brennan]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, because I know that time is short. Does he agree that those Cabinet Committee-style discussions should involve ensuring that the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office understand the ways in which people with autism come into contact with the criminal justice system and understand the behaviours—such as stimming, which is often misinterpreted and ends up with people being arrested—that those individuals exhibit?

Trade Union Bill

Debate between Lord Beamish and Kevin Brennan

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Wednesday 27th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kevan Jones]

What is having to review all this information going to cost the taxpayer? The Minister skated over that. Surely if it is to be done thoroughly and effectively it will come at great cost to the taxpayer.

[Kevin Brennan]

Indeed. Given that the Government’s stated purpose in doing this is to look after the interests of the taxpayer, it is ironic that what my hon. Friend says is exactly the case.

As I said, we are dealing with what we have got back from the Lords. We would not have wished this provision to remain in the Bill at all. We support the Lords amendment to remove it from the Bill completely, and I am setting out to the House the consequences of not doing so.

The original clause 13 included a reserve power for Ministers to introduce regulations imposing an arbitrary cap on the amount of time that union reps in the public sector can spend in the workplace improving health and safety standards, promoting learning and training opportunities, consulting on redundancies or on TUPE transfers, negotiating better pay and conditions, and even representing members in grievances and disciplinary hearings. We agree with the Lords that the clause on facility time should have been removed from the Bill altogether. It is an unnecessary interference in the conduct of good industrial relations. It also goes against the Government’s professed desire to support devolution, as other hon. Members have pointed out, including the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) and my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens). As the Minister will know, it is being resisted by the devolved Administrations.

We acknowledge, however, that significant advances have been made in Government amendment (a). We support the Lords and want this clause removed from the Bill, but if the House decides not to do so, Government amendment (a) will at least make some improvement to a proposal that should never have appeared in the first place.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I should like to speak to amendment (a) to Lords amendment 2. I hope my comments are met in the spirit in which I hope to make them.

I want to outline a frustration that I expressed on Second Reading when I spoke about turnout thresholds within the private sector. In my remarks, I made it clear that trade unions have a very important part to play in the workplace, whether on health and safety, bullying, contract renegotiations regarding a change in working practices or funding, or many such issues. It is wrong to be seen not to appreciate the work that trade unions do. Indeed, as I said earlier, many shop stewards in this country do an outstanding job. I had experience of that when I was a member of Unite, with some excellent shop stewards who worked very well.

I also said on Second Reading that I was not keen on turnout thresholds in the private sector, because, as I outlined, the threshold to go on strike in the private sector is much higher than in the public sector. Whatever the rights and wrongs of it may be, when people go on strike in the public sector, there will generally always be a job to go back to because it is being funded largely by Government through taxation, whereas in the private sector the same threshold cannot be guaranteed, especially in smaller business. If a workforce withdraws its labour, it has gone through a much higher threshold, in its own mind, in perhaps putting at risk the ongoing viability of the company. Therefore, taking strike action in those circumstances means, first, that the conditions that have led to that strike must be very bad, and, secondly, that there has been a complete breakdown of relations between the shop stewards and the owners of those companies.

On Second Reading, I cited Grunwick in the 1970s. I repeat that I do not support the Conservative party’s attempts in the 1970s to break the strike in that company, run by George Ward, because people were working in appalling conditions. Strike action was taken to try to improve conditions that would be unacceptable today. As I said previously, I applaud the last Labour Government for introducing a legal requirement to allow a trade union to operate in the workplace if that is the wish of members of staff.

I therefore hope hon. Members understand my regret that movement was not made on turnout thresholds in the private sector. The flip side of that is that I believe that it is right to have a turnout threshold in the public sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this will not be difficult for many trade unions because on their application forms to join, there is a box to tick to contribute to the political fund? As someone who ran a political fund, I know that that was the case in the GMB. Is this therefore not another example of proposed legislation that is not really needed?

[Kevin Brennan]

Given that my hon. Friend has been physically mistaken for me, I am not surprised that our opinions are identical on this matter. I agree with him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

It is accepted that there is a special relationship between the Labour party and the trade union movement, which founded the party. Of course, they use political funds to campaign in all sorts of way. I am grateful to all parties that have recognised the importance to our constitution of the political funds of trade unions and the vital role they play in our democracy. Trade union money is the cleanest money in politics, compared with some of the sources of money and donations to political parties, and long may that continue.

I do not want to detain the House for much longer, but it would be remiss of me not to conclude without paying tribute to all those who have made this change possible and worked so hard to improve this dreadful Bill. I include all my hon. Friends in our BIS Front-Bench team, including my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State; former members of that Front-Bench team who helped at earlier stages of the Bill; Members from other parties in the House who have helped to fight the good fight; and my hon. Friends in the Labour party.

I want to pay special tribute to my good friend Baroness Smith of Basildon and her team in the Lords—Baroness Hayter, Lord Stevenson and Lord Mendelsohn —as well as all the other peers from other parties and from no party at all who voted to create the Select Committee and who worked so diligently and expertly to get us to where we are today.

It is said that our constitution means that the Opposition have their say but the Government get their way. In this instance, the Opposition have had their say and, at least in part, also got their way. As a result, the legislation has had some of the most pernicious edges knocked off, even if it remains a pig’s ear.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I welcome the work of the Lords, which my hon. Friend has just outlined. It is quite clear what the Bill is about. The Prime Minister talks about being a one nation Conservative, but he wants to be a one nation Conservative with one party—the Conservative party—at an advantage. If we want to understand Conservative Members’ disappointment, we have only to look at the Secretary of State’s face, which says it all.

There was no need for the legislation. It was based on a prejudice born of not understanding the way in which trade unions work, and it was an attempt to ensure that the Conservative party had not only a political advantage but a major financial one. The original requirement in the legislation for new trade union members to opt in would not have come as any great surprise to trade unions. If the Minister takes the trouble to review some trade union application forms, he will see that they have a box on them, next to which is written: “If you want to pay the political levy, tick this box”. It is up to members whether they wish to do that, so the idea that that provision needs to be in the Bill is quite remarkable. We know what the provision was really intended to do, and we know the reason for the climbdown that we have seen. That climbdown has nothing to do with the Trade Union Bill; it has to do with the Prime Minister’s realisation that if he wants millions of trade unionists to vote yes in the EU referendum, he will have to keep them on side. As we often see in politics, the coming together of events has been of benefit and has defeated that bit of pernicious legislation. If it had gone through, as the House of Lords said in the Select Committee report, it would have given the Conservative party an advantage in political funding.

I totally agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) when he says that trade union money is as clean as any type of money. There is transparency about how it is spent, and it is regulated. The same cannot be said of the way in which funding comes to the Conservative party, whether it be through dining clubs or unincorporated associations, which are a way of masking the true source of donations. I look forward to the Government’s bringing forward legislation on the reform of party funding, including greater transparency about sources of funding. That is vital if we are to have an even playing field in terms of the ability to raise funds and the knowledge of where money comes from.

There is another side to this. The media have completely misunderstood the matter, and certainly the Minister—[Interruption.] I am sorry that I seem to be boring the Secretary of State, who is just leaving. He is obviously not very happy about the fact that one of his flagship pieces of legislation is in tatters. The clear impression given by the Conservative party and its supporters is that every single trade union that has a political fund donates it all to the Labour party, but that is simply not the case. Many are not affiliated to the Labour party, and many make no donations at all to any political party. Having run a political fund for the GMB, I know that the proportion that goes to the Labour party is small compared with the proportion that is spent on campaigning work. That allows the union not only to campaign on political issues, but to have a say, quite rightly, on things such as health and safety legislation or reorganisations of hospitals and other institutions. Without the political fund, the union would not be able to do that. The proposal would not only have taken away from my party the ability to receive money from trade unions, but would have hampered trade unions from taking part in civic life in this country, as they are quite right to do, through having a voice and making sure that their members’ collective voice is heard in consultations on whatever affects them directly.

Recall of MPs Bill

Debate between Lord Beamish and Kevin Brennan

Monday 27th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

Not yet. There is a convention in this House that we have to answer an intervention before allowing another one.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

If the hon. Gentleman turned up a bit more, he would know that.

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend makes a good point from a sedentary position.

There are occasions—I gave the example earlier of Ann Cryer—when Members take positions that are at odds with certain sections of their constituents, but that is the beauty of Parliament. It is about being able to argue not just on our constituents’ behalf, but for the progressive changes and legislation that, if we had recall, I doubt would have been delivered. That is why I find it very odd that people who are supposedly on the left support this type of recall—

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

A rich man’s charter.

[Mr Jones]

As my hon. Friend says, it is a rich man’s charter to pick off anyone who has views at odds with their own.

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He cannot argue for his proposal and then say, following my raising the issue the other day, that if someone else wants to bring in spending limits, they can. He should have thought this through. He knows exactly what he is doing: this proposal will give powerful individuals with deep pockets a big influence over how our democracy is conducted. I am sorry, but I do not agree with that. It is wrong. The supporters of this proposal are saying, “Are you afraid of your electors? Are you going to give ordinary electors a say?” That is not what the proposal will do. It will give well organised, well financed individuals a lot of say over who sits on these green Benches.

[Kevin Brennan]

And how they behave.

[Mr Jones]

I do not think that money should determine that or, as my hon. Friend says, how Members behave. People should be elected on a broad range of issues, and it is for the electorate to determine subsequently whether they are re-elected.

Business of the House (Thursday)

Debate between Lord Beamish and Kevin Brennan

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

I note what my hon. Friend is saying but, again, I wish to stick to discussing this business motion. I would not want Mr Speaker to pull me up for being tempted to go down a path that would not be in order.

[Kevin Brennan]

My hon. Friend reminds us that we must return to the motion, so what does he think of the Government’s practice of setting the time for tomorrow’s debate to finish at 5.30 pm and ignoring the moment of interruption, which this House democratically voted to put at 6 pm on a Thursday?

[Mr Jones]

I am not sure whether my hon. Friend has got good eyesight or was reading my mind, because that was exactly the point that I was going to make next. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) says that he is “Mystic Kev”, and clearly he is. An important point is at issue, because when the Leader of the House made his opening remarks he was asked why the debate was going to finish at 5.30 pm and not 6 pm tomorrow and we are still waiting for an answer. That was the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) tried to tease out with his manuscript amendment. Clearly, Mr Speaker, you have ruled that that is not in order, but we have still not heard an explanation of why 5.30 pm was chosen.

We have seen a strange thing this week, because this motion allows us five hours for the debate tomorrow, yet a matter of a day ago a motion proposed that we have three hours for that debate. No explanation has been given of why two hours have suddenly been conjured up—I will allow people to intervene on this. If we can suddenly, in a day, conjure up two hours, why can we not conjure up more time, as is clearly needed for this vital debate?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I told the Whips tonight that I was giving up the opportunity to dine with people from north-east industry, so I have given up that very nice dinner and an opportunity to discuss with those individuals, who are very important to the north-east, higher education and other issues.

[Kevin Brennan]

The Government’s response to the debate is a key factor, is it not? If they had simply allowed the debate to extend to the normal moment of interruption on a Thursday, there would have been half an hour for them to respond, but as things stand, we will probably have only something like five minutes each at the end.

[Mr Jones]

I accept what my hon. Friend is saying, but I do not think that an extra half hour would give the House enough time to debate this issue. The words of the Leader of the House in his opening statement are important. As a reason why the statutory instrument needs to be rushed through this week, in a matter of five hours, he said—I wrote this down—that otherwise we would slow the process down, and that the fiscal position we are in is important. That exposes the truth of why this measure is being driven through. It is nothing at all to do with higher education or ensuring that Members can have a debate tomorrow. Rather than the Government thinking about the future of the country and its educational needs, they are saying that future generations will have to start paying now, to try to help them in the financial position in which they now find themselves.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for that very short intervention. No, I have not. As everyone knows, I am not the most technical person.

[Kevin Brennan]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a matter of some great contention, and we know—indeed, you will be aware, Mr Speaker—that in the previous Parliament a disturbance during proceedings on the Hunting Bill debate caused the House to be suspended. In the unlikely and absolutely dreadful event of that being repeated tomorrow, would the five hours be protected, or would any suspension of the House eat into that time?

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer to the hon. Gentleman is that he is raising a hypothetical question, and my attitude is best encapsulated in the wise words of the late Lord Whitelaw, who famously said that on the whole he preferred to cross bridges only when he came to them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

It is not only the mood of the House: it is also the mood of the country. As with many things that this Government are doing, they are rushing things through. If we had pushed through legislation and ignored the House to this extent, we would have been rightly criticised. Sometimes we did not allow the House enough time for true debate and we were criticised in the press. The point has already been made that curtailing debate also leads to bad legislation, because the implications are not scrutinised either on the Floor of the House or in Committee.

[Kevin Brennan]

My hon. Friend knows that this House has taken a few knocks to its reputation in the last couple of years. Will not the public be staggered when they find out that not only will the debate tomorrow be limited to five hours, but that the Government are not even proposing that the House uses up the time that it normally has available on a Thursday and finishes at half-past 5 instead of 6?

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend has made that point eloquently for the third time. I know that repetition is important, but I do not want to repeat points that have already been made well. It is true that we still have not had an explanation for the finishing time from the Leader of the House.

In conclusion—[Hon. Members: “More!”] I could start from the beginning if people want me to do so—[Interruption.] The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, has been chuntering from a sedentary position all night. I do not know whether he actually wants to make a contribution to the debate tonight or tomorrow, but as he has given up his principles for his red box and car, perhaps he should explain why.

In conclusion, five hours is completely inadequate to discuss the important implications of the motion tomorrow. It will affect not only thousands of students who are now in university, but thousands in the future. It will change the relationship between the state and higher education. It is not acceptable to rush that motion through in five hours without any justification for why three hours was okay two nights ago and five hours is adequate now. I urge hon. Members, especially those Liberal Democrats who still have their backbones in place, to vote with us and object to this programme motion tonight.