Schools that work for Everyone

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Monday 12th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

My hon. Friend sets out the case very well. Parents have more and better choices in his local community. That is important and part of how we see standards rising. We are committed to that continuing.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I, too, listened very carefully to the words of the Secretary of State and she did say that we do not want to see a test at 11 for access to grammars. Is it her intention to abolish the 11-plus for existing grammar schools? If not, why not?

[Justine Greening]

The point I was making to the hon. Gentleman was that many people feel there is a cliff edge in terms of entry into grammars, as it stands, at age 11. We are consulting on children having the chance to go to a local grammar, perhaps at an older age. Indeed, if they are particularly capable at one or two subjects, they could perhaps go to a grammar to study them. I am sure he will read the consultation document with interest.

New Grammar Schools

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Thursday 8th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

I think that is right. Critically, we need the right level of autonomy for schools so that they can actually get on with the job of teaching our children. We need fantastic leadership in our schools. We know from the London experience that that was absolutely critical. Heads who showed what could be done in difficult schools then worked with other schools so that they could put in place the same approaches. More broadly, we also need teaching staff who are motivated and able to work effectively in the classroom with children who can be disciplined effectively by a head who genuinely feels they have control over and can exercise leadership in their school. All those things make a difference.

Beyond that, if we are to make an impact on long-term social mobility in Britain—it will not change overnight—we need not just schools and the education family to drive social mobility, but communities, business, our universities and civil society to do so. Everybody needs to play a role, alongside core education reform, to make sure that children in the classroom and outside it can get the skills, knowledge, advice and experience that they will need truly to develop their potential.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

When the chief inspector said that the idea that poor children would benefit from an expansion in the number of grammar schools was “tosh and nonsense”, was he being ideological?

[Justine Greening]

As we open up this debate, people will have different views, but I do not believe that that is a reason not to have the debate. It is too important for that. Improving attainment and having more good school places for more children—building the capacity we need in our system so that we can have great schools on the doorstep for every child in our country—is too important simply to be put in the “too hard” bucket and for us to say that we might have a bit of a debate about it. I think we should have this debate and that we should work out what we must do to do a better job of raising the attainment of the children who currently do not go far enough.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Monday 4th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Edward Timpson]

I refer my hon. Friend to the earlier answer on this subject. At the core of this issue is ensuring that we have the highest quality PSHE possible. We continue to keep the matter under review, and will return to it shortly.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that mindfulness can be helpful not only with the social and emotional aspects of learning but in improving the attentiveness of pupils in schools, and therefore their academic achievement as well as their personal wellbeing?

[Edward Timpson]

There is a small but increasing amount of evidence that backs the hon. Gentleman’s claim. That is why we want to look at this area more carefully, hence the national survey that is under way to enrich the evidence and knowledge to see what really works so that we can improve all the aspects of a child’s life to which he refers.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

That is a good question. As my hon. Friend will know, we have already changed procurement rules so that they can take economic and social factors into account. We are also making the pipeline of deals much more visible, and targeting that at SMEs in particular.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Carwyn Jones, the Labour First Minister in Wales, who is at Port Talbot again today, had a package of support in place immediately after Tata’s announcement of its intention to sell. Now that the UK Government have belatedly woken up and followed that lead, how confident is the Secretary of State that Tata’s true intention is to be responsible? It took over a year to sort out long products, and Tata wants this to be done and dusted—including due diligence—by the end of June. Does the Secretary of State think that that is a realistic prospect?

[Sajid Javid]

We are working with the Labour First Minister and his Government. Both Governments understand just how important this is, and I think it is also important for us to continue to work together. As for the question of timing, I believe, as I said earlier, that Tata is sincere in its commitment to a reasonable time frame and a reasonable process. I have no reason to think that that will not be the case. Tata continues to show flexibility, and I hope that things stay that way.

Trade Union Bill (Discussions)

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Thursday 28th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Nick Boles]

May I start by saying that I have the greatest respect for the passion and commitment, which have lasted for not just years but decades, that my hon. Friend has brought to the cause he advocates with such vigour—that we leave the European Union? I have nothing but total respect for that passion and commitment.

I just want gently to correct my hon. Friend on a few points of fact, because he focused so much on the important question he raised that a number of the things he suggested about the current mechanism for union members’ subscriptions to the political fund were not absolutely correct.

The first point to make is that it is not the case that somebody who has recently joined a trade union, and to whom the new requirement for an opt-in will therefore not apply, will never be asked whether they want to pay into the political levy—very far from it. There is a long-standing legal requirement that they are offered an opt-out from that political levy and that that is communicated clearly to them. That opt-out is not just a one-time thing; it is not something they are offered only when they join—it is something they can exercise at any time, and they need to be reminded of it regularly.

The other thing to say is that, while estimates from different unions vary, the overall estimate is that roughly 13% to 14% of all trade union members joined in the last year. I am not going to suggest that all trade union members will have needed to opt in to the political fund over this Parliament, but a substantial proportion will have.

I am afraid my hon. Friend is also not correct to say that we are talking about a Labour amendment. The amendment was moved by Lord Burns—somebody for whom I know my hon. Friend has the greatest respect, as a fearsomely independent former permanent secretary. The amendment flowed out of a Committee in which there was some very fearsome representation of all parties. It was clearly inspired by Lord Burns’s argument that it is not reasonable to ask people who have signed up to an arrangement in good faith then to have to sign up again through a different process simply because we have changed the law later on. I did not agree with that argument, and nor did we in this House, but what happened often happens when the House of Lords feels very, very strongly on an issue, when there is a very, very large majority against the Government’s position, and when an Independent Member of the House of Lords has moved an amendment that has secured support not just from the official Opposition and from the Liberal Democrats but from a huge number of Cross Benchers—and not just from Cross Benchers but some very significant members of our own party.

I urge my hon. Friend to look at the people who spoke in the debate and voted, or very assertively chose not to vote, in support of the Government’s position. They included not just Lord Cormack and Lord Balfe but Lord Forsyth, who supports the same campaign on the European Union that my hon. Friend has supported and who, both privately and publicly, said that he thought it was a profound error for us to pursue a compulsory opt-in for all existing members. So it is not right to say that it was just a Labour position.

My hon. Friend suggested that it was inappropriate for the Government to do anything in terms of making changes to legislation to further private interests, and of course he is right. However, it is not right, and not even in the passion of the moment is it fair, to categorise the official policy of Her Majesty’s Government in that way. We support the proposition that the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union. He disagrees, honourably and valiantly, but it is not a private interest—it is Government policy.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

It is very good to have this further opportunity to re-emphasise our implacable opposition to the execrable Trade Union Bill, which is entirely unnecessary, bad for workers, and bad for businesses. As the Minister said, the Lords set up a cross-party Committee chaired by Lord Burns to look at the unworkable proposals on trade union political funds and party political funding. That Committee came up with a series of Salisbury-convention-compliant recommendations that were voted for by an overwhelming majority of peers from all parties and from none.

Will the Minister confirm that he recently met Lord Burns, who made clear the strength of feeling in the other place on this matter? Will he also confirm that he has received overwhelming representations from all quarters, including the trade unions? By the way, it is hardly surprising, given that this is the Trade Union Bill, that he should receive representations from the unions. Is it not the case that all these various representations made it clear that the proposals on political funding were unworkable and breached the long-established convention that major changes to the funding of a political party should happen only by agreement?

It would appear, at least partially that the Minister listened—well done—but he should have listened earlier, and he needs to keep listening. Will he therefore have a few more meetings with trade unions, which have made entirely reasonable proposals on e-balloting and facility time that still remain in the Bill? There is still time for him to think again.

[Nick Boles]

I can confirm that, as the hon. Gentleman said, earlier this week I held a meeting, at my request, with Lord Burns in which I discussed with him an amendment to the Bill that we had put down and were intending to move. That amendment would still have applied the compulsory opt-in to existing members of trade unions but would have built a longer period of transition for trade unions to implement it and would also have changed the arrangements on the requirement for renewal of their opt-in to align it with the political fund ballots that need to take place every 10 years.

I had hoped that Lord Burns would feel, if not enthusiastic about that compromise, at least able to indicate that he would not actively oppose it when the Bill went back to the upper House in the next stage of ping-pong. Lord Burns, who is a man for whom I have huge admiration and a great deal of liking, was very clear to me that that was not an acceptable compromise and that not only would he not support it, but he would actively propose the reinstatement of his amendment, which excluded existing members.

Lord Burns made it very clear that his judgment was not so much a political one—it was certainly not particularly inspired by questions about the balance of party funding. It was simply based on his experience in the financial services industry, where he said it was very unfair to ask people to sign up to new things when they have already expressed an opinion on that very same question by a means that was previously legal. He said that that applied in this case; he thought that it was wrong and he could not support it. We then reflected on Lord Burns’s position and tabled the amendments that we passed last night.

As for the comments made by the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) about the rest of the Bill, I want to be very clear with him and other Labour Members: this Bill is going to dramatically improve the state of employment relations and the state of industrial action. At the moment, a trade union, including various education trade unions, can hold a strike three years after a ballot has been passed with a turnout of less than 20% of their members and close more than 1,000 colleges. That is currently legal. When the Bill—which will pass through this House with the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin); I anticipate that the noble Lords will pass it next week—receives Royal Assent, it will no longer be possible to inflict on hard-working parents the closure of a school in the middle of the week on the basis of a tiny turnout secured several years ago. That is why I am proud of this Bill and why my hon. Friend can be proud of it: we have secured our manifesto commitments for all working people.

Trade Union Bill

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

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

[Nick Boles]

I have been generous and I will be generous again, but I shall try to make some progress.

As I indicated, the amendment provides that the cap may be disapplied for as long as necessary and to the extent necessary for individual employers. This would enable a temporary lifting of the cap for one or more specific employers, and we propose to use it in circumstances where the employer and Ministers consider it necessary. We envisage that should a particular employer experience a need for more facility time, perhaps during a period of change or following a particular incident, Ministers can allow this so that facility time can be increased to respond to the circumstance. The reserve power that this amendment would deliver is considerably improved from the version that was deleted in the other place, and I urge the House to support it. I commend the amendments to the House.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I want to make it clear right at the outset that we remain opposed to this Bill. Despite some of the changes that it has undergone in another place, it remains a dreadful, mean-spirited, partisan, petty piece of legislation. Having got that off my chest, I recognise that Members in another place have made a valiant attempt to make a silk purse out of this particularly malformed sow’s ear, so that after today it may end up being a slightly less ugly sow’s ear than it was, but it will remain a malodorous porcine lug, for all their lordships’ noble efforts.

Many of the changes that peers made are welcome if we consider the crudeness of the Bill in its original form. On the first group of Lords amendments and the Government’s response to them, Lords amendment 2 was passed in the other place by 320 votes to 181, requiring the Government to commission a review of electronic voting in industrial action ballots within six months of Royal Assent. After the review, amendment 2 would require the Government to publish a strategy for rolling out electronic voting.

Government amendment (a) would revise Lords amendment 2 so that Ministers are required only to publish a response to the review, but need not take further action to actually introduce e-balloting. The Government have consistently resisted e-balloting on the grounds that they still had concerns about the safety of electronic voting, despite the fact, as many hon. Members have pointed out, that the Conservative party used electronic ballots for the selection of its London mayoral candidate, although I suppose the Conservatives may now be regretting that, given the poor performance of the candidate they selected using that method. Perhaps that explains the Government’s concern.

It is clear that the Government’s real objection to e-balloting and, indeed, to workplace balloting, which we argued for unsuccessfully in this House and in the other place, has been that they do not want high turnouts because their new threshold barriers could be more easily reached if more people were more easily able to vote.

Not only will all ballots for industrial action require a minimum 50% turnout under the Bill, but those working in the loosely defined “important public services group” will face an additional hurdle of needing a 40% yes vote from all those eligible to vote. That means that these thresholds place higher requirements on those industrial action ballots than on any other democratic process within the UK. For example, the 50% turnout threshold was not reached for the last London Mayoral election or most local government and devolved elections.

The Government have agreed that Ministers should be required to commission an independent review of the use of e-ballots for industrial action within six months of Royal Assent. They have agreed that it will be possible to run pilots as part of that review, as the Minister said, but the Government are proposing that after the review Ministers would need to publish a response, but not necessarily to take any further action. There would be no requirement to publish a strategy for rolling out electronic voting.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Is there not a slight concern that this is just a delaying tactic by the Government, who do not intend to introduce these measures? Given that in 2016 many people are quite used to banking online, registering to vote online and submitting their tax returns online, do not questions about security and anonymity fall by the wayside?

[Kevin Brennan]

I know the Minister, and I take him at his word when he says that that is not his intention and that this is not a delaying tactic. However, to coin a phrase, he is a here today, gone tomorrow Minister—I say that from experience, as a former Minister—and somebody else may well occupy his place in the future. That person may not have the good intentions the Minister has outlined to the House today, and we must legislate for that possibility, rather than assume that somebody with good will is going to occupy his seat in perpetuity.

The Government propose that they would not have to publish a strategy after the review. Let me be clear: their amendment is not necessary. I accept that they have moved a long way in accepting the review, the pilots, the requirement to lay a report before Parliament, the need to consult experts and to get advice and recommendations, and the need to commission a report within six months of passing the Act. Those changes are significant, and they go part of the way towards achieving what we have argued for right from the start, as well as achieving most of what was agreed in the other place with cross-Bench support.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

As someone who, along with other colleagues, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), considers that electronic balloting is probably the right way to go, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman welcomes the progress the Minister and the Government have made in that direction? I believe that the Minister, and indeed any future Minister, although I hope this Minister remains in his place for a long time, will ensure that the evidence is looked at and that, provided it shows that electronic balloting is the right way to go, which I very much hope it does, we will go forward with it.

[Kevin Brennan]

Obviously I cannot comment on how long the Minister will remain in his post—we will see what happens in the forthcoming reshuffle. However, I did recognise the movement the Government have made, although I made it clear that their amendment to their lordships’ amendment is unnecessary and that the whole matter could have been dealt with in a much more straightforward manner. However, we are where we are, having received these amendments from the Lords, and those are all that we can discuss today.

Ultimately, it is inconceivable that any Minister, having received a report on how e-balloting could be introduced safely, would then deny trade union members the opportunity to participate in a ballot using modern electronic communications. The only possible reason for Ministers at that future point to reject an expert report outlining the appropriate way to introduce modern technology into ballots and to offer the opportunity for easier participation in a democratic vote would be a desire to suppress turnout.

[Mr David Davis]

The hon. Gentleman comes right to the point. He does not have to rely on the good will of this Minister, who I am sure will be in the Cabinet in six months. The reason I asked the Minister to outline at the Dispatch Box the Government’s intent on receipt of the report was that, if another Minister were ever tempted not to follow the explicit policy line we have now, the hon. Gentleman and I could hold that Minister to account in this Chamber.

[Kevin Brennan]

I do not know whether future Prime Minister Gove will appoint the Minister to the Cabinet—we shall have to wait and see—but the right hon. Gentleman is exactly right. That is why the Government’s amendment is unnecessary and dilutes the effect of accepting the rest of this Lords amendment. However, I am seeking to put on record the fact that, should any future Minister take another path, having had a clear recommendation in the report, one could only interpret their intentions as less than honourable.

[Nick Boles]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Could you advise me whether it is in order for the House to spend quite so much time talking about my career prospects, because I do not feel that that is really helping?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I am not sure whether that is good or bad for the House.

[Kevin Brennan]

I am happy to leave the Minister alone for the rest of the debate, apart from on the issues we are discussing.

If any Minister did take the path I described, there would obviously be considerable anger and opposition from not just the Labour party but other parties and Members of the other place, who worked so hard to craft this amendment on electronic balloting. In practice, I think the momentum for e-balloting will be unstoppable if the report is published and comes to the conclusions we think it will. However, we prefer the Lords amendment, and we will seek to keep it in the Bill this afternoon.

Let me move on to the other part of this group of amendments, which includes Lords amendment 17, on facility time, the Government’s motion to disagree with it, and their proposed additions to clause 13—should the House decide to reinstate it by voting to disagree with the Lords. The Lords passed amendment 17 by 248 votes to 160, removing Ministers’ power to impose a cap on union facilities by deleting clause 13. The Government have tabled a motion to disagree with Lords amendment 17 so that they can restore their ability to impose a cap on facilities. They have proposed a further amendment to amend the reinstated clause in line with assurances they gave in the Lords, providing that no cap could be imposed for the first three years after the new reporting requirements on facilities came into force.

Before Ministers could impose a cap they would need to review the published data on facilities, the cost of facilities for the relevant employer, the nature of the services run by the public authority, any particular factors relevant to the employer, and other related matters. They would also need to consider the type of organisation and any relevant factors—for example, if the organisation was facing a major restructure. If the Minister had concerns about the level of facilities in a particular public authority, under the Government’s proposed provisions he would need to write to the employer expressing those concerns.

[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 ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I am sorry—Kevin Brennan.

[Kevin Brennan]

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. There is a great physical similarity between me and my hon. Friend, and it was entirely understandable on your part to mistake one for the other.

First, as I should have done when speaking on the previous group of amendments, I declare my membership of Unite the union and my very proud membership of the Musicians Union.

As the Minister said, the Government are accepting most of the amendments in this group. Due to the time constraints, I will not deal with all of them. He highlighted the significant changes, including on check-off, which we very much welcome. He will recall that during our debate on Report the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) tabled an amendment on these provisions. I pointed that out that it was extraordinary that a Conservative Government were seeking to make illegal a voluntary arrangement between parties, even where one party is paying for the service, when that arrangement is neither immoral nor illegal. That would have been an extraordinarily illiberal measure. I am glad that in their lordships’ House the Government gave way on this matter and it is no longer in the Bill. That is very welcome.

I welcome what the Minister said on the record about the certification officer. It is extremely important that the Government recognise the concerns that have been expressed about the potential for vexatious complaints by third parties and the tremendous waste of time that that could be for all concerned. I also welcome his comments on a review of how the provision works out in practice. Although, as I have made clear, we do not agree with what the Government are doing in relation to the certification officer, that is a welcome assurance, and I am glad that he has put it on the record here at this stage before the Bill goes back to the Lords.

Perhaps the most controversial and contentious element of the Bill has been the Government’s desire to create an opt-in process for trade union political funds. Lords amendments 7 and 8 relate to that. The original Government proposal meant that existing trade union members who pay into their union’s political fund would have to opt back into the fund, in writing, within three months of the Bill’s passage, and do so again after five years.

--- 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.

[Mr Anderson]

May I take my hon. Friend back to his comments about the work of the House of Lords? I echo the words of Lord Patrick Cormack, who was a Member of this House for 40 years. He said:

“But we do not have to advance on that at such a pace that we seriously disadvantage one of the great parties of the realm and unbalance our democracy in the process.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 March 2016; Vol. 769, c. 1876.]

Does not that get to the nub of what this was all about—unbalancing democracy in this House and disadvantaging the Labour party? Lord Cormack was absolutely right. It is a shame that there are not more like him in the Conservative party in this House today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

I pay tribute to Lord Cormack for his work on the Bill and his words in the House of Lords. He might seem to some an unlikely hero of the working class, but in this instance he has reflected what one nation Conservatism should mean. That phrase is bandied about from time to time, but his interventions and those of other colleagues in the House of Lords remind us that we legislate not just for one Parliament but for the future. I will go on to describe why it would have been very dangerous if the Government had stuck to their original plans.

The House of Lords looked for a workable way for the Government to introduce their stated manifesto commitment without it becoming a crude and clumsy device to starve the second largest party in Parliament—the Labour party—of a long-standing source of finance from the very institutions that founded it. My hon. Friend just said this in another way, but I think that the Lords have done the Government a big favour. Had they proceeded with the original proposals, they would have created—make no mistake about it—a lasting bitterness and resentment in the trade union and Labour movement and, indeed, beyond. We are grateful for the support received from other political parties.

I have no doubt, as many of their lordships pointed out, and, indeed, as paragraph 130 of the House of Lords cross-party Select Committee report noted, that the original proposal would

“make the Labour Party more inclined to take unilateral action against the Conservative Party and its funding when next in government.”

It appears that, at this very late hour, that point has hit home with Ministers, and I very much welcome that.

The Government have decided to think again about their proposals on political fund opt-ins and have tabled amendments (k) to (n) to replace Lords amendments 7 and 8. The requirement to opt into political funds will apply only to new union members. As a result, union members who have already voluntarily agreed to make contributions will not be required to opt in again to support ongoing trade union campaigns. Existing members will be required to opt in only if their union votes to establish a political fund for the first time. The Government have also conceded on the issue of five years and have allowed for a minimum 12-month transition period for unions. Union members will be able to opt in or opt out not only on paper, but through electronic means, so it is now okay to use electronic means to opt in—we will eventually get it to apply to ballots—including online forms, emails and, potentially, texts. Unions will still be required to remind members annually of their right to opt out and they can do so by using individual communications or through their usual systems for informing members, including union newsletters and notice boards.

The Government’s amendments take on board all of the core elements in the proposals made by Lord Burns’s Committee’s report, and I remind the House that it passed the Lords by 320 votes to 172. It therefore passed by an even greater majority than that which set up the Select Committee in the first place, which demonstrates the growing support for this approach.

I still believe that the proposals for an opt-in system for political funds are totally unnecessary—that should be put on the record—but we recognise that the Government’s new proposal is a substantial improvement on the original Bill, which would have required all members to opt in within three months and to renew that opt-in within five years. On that basis, while retaining our opposition to the Bill in general and to opt-in in particular, we will not seek to divide the House on the Government amendments, given the substantial concessions they have made.

[Tommy Sheppard]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the clear intention behind the move from opt out to opt in is an attempt by some members of the Conservative party to attack the funding of the Labour party. Does he agree, however, that our defence of the right of trade unions to engage in political activity will be more effective if we ensure that they are able to engage not just in activity to support the Labour party, but in other political action that achieves change and support, whichever party they feel serves their members’ best interests?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wes Streeting]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I have sat on the employer side of the table when working with trade unions more than I have sat on the side of employees, even though I have been a member of a trade union for as long as I have been in full-time work. Employers often value that relationship with trade unions. It is not an adversarial relationship—well, sometimes it can be, and the breakdown of industrial relations, particularly when strike action occurs, is a sign of failure. When people choose to strike they lose their pay, so they do not do it lightly. Many families struggle to balance their budgets at the end of the month, with too much month and not enough money left, so losing a couple of days’ pay is often a real hardship. They do not take such action lightly, and that is not understood enough when we speak in glib terms in this place about trade union industrial action.

I listened to what the Minister said about concessions that have been made, and how no changes will be made to facility time for a few years until we have done all the counting and assessment, but how long will that take, and how much money and civil service time will it cost? Bizarrely, the Government will waste time counting trade union facility time for employers up and down the country, but they will not count the number of children in poverty. That tells us all we need to know about this Government’s wrong-headed priorities, and about the timewasting involved in introducing this Bill in the first place. I congratulate Members of the House of Lords—where the Government do not have a majority—on the way that they have torn this Bill apart and exposed it to forensic scrutiny, and we heard expertise from across the political spectrum.

[Kevin Brennan]

The Bill also received forensic scrutiny in the House of Commons, but we could not win any votes.

[Wes Streeting]

My hon. Friend has pre-empted me. I was about to congratulate not just my Front-Bench colleagues on their diligent work, but also my colleagues on the Bill Committee. I followed some of the sessions and read the evidence, and there was forensic scrutiny. The Government’s arguments did not stack up, and many of us have come to this Chamber time and again to get them to rethink.

National Living Wage

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Monday 18th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan), who has been more than a super-sub for my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) today. We all wish my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden a speedy recovery. My right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North gave the House some good examples of people who could lose out despite the fact that the so-called national living wage was intended to increase pay for those on low incomes. We have heard a lot of very good contributions.

We heard a contribution from the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who appears to have read, in his book on microeconomics, of the impact of increasing wages, but not to have got on to the volume on the impact of labour as a derived demand and the impact of higher wages on aggregate demand in the economy. As we discovered when we introduced the national minimum wage, increasing pay for the less well-off can result in a more prosperous economy because of their higher propensity to consume.

[Philip Davies]

I just want to know on what basis the hon. Gentleman feels more qualified than the Office for Budget Responsibility, which made it very clear that 4 million hours and 60,000 jobs would be lost.

[Kevin Brennan]

I will come to my concerns about the way in which this policy is being introduced in due course. There is plenty of evidence from the introduction of the national minimum wage that if it is done correctly, increasing pay for the lowest paid workers can result in an increase in aggregate demand, and in greater productivity and prosperity for the economy.

We have heard contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford South (Judith Cummins), for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk), and for Burnley (Julie Cooper). We have also heard from the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley), my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) and my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch), whose reference to Adele and the importance of paying younger people sounded convincing to someone like me.

We also heard from the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), who talked about his experience as a council leader. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), and from the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss). My neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens), made a pertinent point about seafarers. It is important to remember that seafarers are exempt from this legislation, and we need to bring in new protections for them. My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) told us about her partner spending a lot of time at B&Q. If her household is anything like mine, that is no doubt a result of his being told that he has to go to B&Q and do certain DIY jobs. This happened to me so much in years gone by that we used to call it “Be in the Queue” because I was down there so much. We also heard from the Scottish National party Front-Bench spokesperson, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford).

Today’s debate has been rather peculiar. On this side of the House, there has been general support for the idea of the so-called national living wage that the Chancellor announced in his Budget, but there has also been criticism of its implementation and its potential to make some people worse off. That is the purpose of today’s debate. However, the only contribution from a Back-Bench Conservative Member seemed to be against the Government’s policy altogether, so it has been a peculiar debate in that respect.

As has been highlighted, the national minimum wage was introduced by the Labour Government in 1998. It was opposed tooth and nail by the Conservatives, but the Minister for Skills has previously and rather generously acknowledged that they were wrong to do so, just as they were wrong to oppose other progressive achievements of Labour Governments, such as the NHS. He has acknowledged that fact on the record in my presence in this House, and I am grateful for his generosity in doing so.

I referred to the “so-called national living wage” because, as has been pointed out many times today, it really is not a new concept. It is a symptom of the Chancellor’s inability to do anything that might be worth while without trying to extract the maximum political advantage from it. This was highlighted when the former Work and Pensions Secretary resigned, saying that the Chancellor was always seeking to do something that was

“distinctly political rather than in the national economic interest”.

The Chancellor could have said, “I want to increase the national minimum wage for the over-25s”, which is in effect what this policy does. Instead, he chose to pinch the name “living wage” from those who have worked on devising and calculating it, who have brought together the evidence based on need to formulate the concept of a living wage, and who have campaigned for it right across the country with great success. He nicked that name for his policy, which, it has been pointed out, will not introduce a true living wage based on the concept of the evidence of need as developed by the Living Wage Foundation.

Similarly, the Chancellor could have done the thorough preparation that a policy such as this requires. He could have put the policy through a proper stress test, as was done by Ian McCartney and others when the national minimum wage was first introduced. However, that would have spoilt his piece of political theatre in the Budget, and the Great Osborno would not have been able to pull a rabbit out of his hat to the delight of all his misdirected audience on the Conservative Benches. The problem of some workers potentially being worse off could have been avoided if we had a Chancellor who was more interested in the substance of making policy work than in the smoke and mirrors of political presentation.

It is illegal for employers to pay less than the national minimum wage, yet figures provided by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills show that the numbers of employers being fined for doing so have actually increased in recent years. We would like to know what measures will be put in place to ensure that we do not have a repeat of this deliberate lawbreaking and undermining when the so-called national living wage is more established. Will these companies be named and shamed? Will there be financial penalties?

[Stephen Doughty]

Is my hon. Friend aware of the case of MiHomecare, a subsidiary of Mitie in the care sector? It has had to make a significant number of payments to workers in Wales and has been involved in out-of-court settlements for non-payment of the minimum wage, yet it was the Conservatives who gave Mitie’s chief executive, now Baroness McGregor-Smith, a peerage.

[Kevin Brennan]

I am aware of that case. My hon. Friend, who is my other parliamentary neighbour, accurately reflects the problems in the care sector that came up in the debate, and describes the connections to some of the companies that need to be looked into more carefully.

The action being taken by some employers may not be illegal, but it undermines the spirit of the law, which is to provide an increase in wages and living standards for British workers. Some of those taking this curmudgeonly path are in the sectors that might benefit most from workers having extra purchasing power in their pocket, such as tourism, retail and hospitality. As we have heard, the Low Pay Commission warned that some employers could label employees as apprentices to avoid having to pay the so-called national living wage.

We have heard examples involving various supermarket chains, retailers, restaurants and so on. In the interests of time, I will not name them or repeat what was said in the debate, but in a week when we have seen one loss-making chief executive officer try to secure a pay package of £14 million a year, it is obscene that an ultimate pay rate of £9 by 2020 is being undermined by the heads of some of these big businesses. Corporation tax has been reduced in recognition of the introduction of the so-called national living wage, leading to savings for businesses. Was that intended to compensate businesses for the phased introduction of the so-called national living wage? If so, does the Minister condemn the businesses using some of these practices?

Private sector businesses may have other opportunities to recoup increased costs by raising prices for goods and services, or by altering how labour, capital and profits are apportioned and rewarded. However, those options are not available to local government, as was pointed out, and the gap there is huge. Will the Minister agree to review the local government cuts in view of the impact of the national living wage?

Many hon. Members referred to young people, who have been deliberately excluded from the so-called national living wage. The Guardian recently highlighted the case of a worker at a well-known DIY store—I will put it no more strongly than that—who was on £7.20 before the introduction of the so-called national living wage and £6.70 after its introduction. He said:

“I’m getting less for doing the same job… I feel so worthless.”

What is the Minister’s reaction to that? What assessment has he made of the impact of the so-called national living wage on workers under 25? As was asked in the debate, what is the purpose of widening the differential between the under-25s and those who are older? Is it to increase demand for the under-25s, or does it reflect that the Minister somehow believes that the under-25s are worth less in productivity terms than those over 25?

The so-called national living wage could be celebrated on all sides of the House if it was introduced properly and if the letter and spirit of the law were upheld. If not, many workers could, as we have heard, be considerably worse off. The Opposition will be watching closely to ensure that that does not occur. The Government, with all their resources and power, should be introducing the change with real vigour. Will the Minister act to ensure that, as the motion demands, no workers are worse off as a result of Government policy? I invite him to tell the House how he will do that.

Draft Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses (amendment) Regulations 2016

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2016 General Committees

[The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses (Amendment) Regulations 2016.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson.

We need a strong and efficient labour market—a market that gives people opportunities to find appropriate jobs and that gives employers access to the kind of labour that matches their skills needs—to maintain our economic growth and job creation. The recruitment sector plays an important role in making that happen by matching the demand for jobs to the demand for workers.

The sector is regulated by the Employment Agencies Act 1973 and the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003—the conduct regulations. It is important that we reduce the regulatory burden on employment businesses and employment agencies as far as is possible, while increasing the opportunities for British workers to apply for British jobs.

Last year, the Government consulted on a package of measures, building on the previous consultation under the coalition Government, to remove a number of business-to-business regulations and to strengthen the existing legislation that prevents employment agencies and businesses from advertising jobs in other European economic area countries without advertising them in Great Britain and in English. I was inclined to skate over the specific deregulatory measures in the hope that the Committee would not be that interested in each of them, but I find myself facing the hon. Member for Cardiff West, who will have some very tricky questions for me, so I will detain the Committee with a little more detail on each of the deregulatory measures.

Regulation 9 of the conduct regulations, which is being removed, prevents employment agencies and employment businesses from claiming to be acting on one basis to the work-seeker, while stating something different to the hirer. There is little evidence that the regulation serves a useful purpose. We do not need free-standing regulations to underpin a standard that would be enforceable to some extent through contract law or, in cases of fraud, through general criminal law.

Regulation 11 ensures that employment agencies and employment businesses cannot enter into a contract with a hirer on behalf of a worker, and vice versa. The regulation applies to all agencies and businesses, but it is mainly relevant to those operating in the entertainment and modelling sectors. We are removing the regulation because there are sufficient protections in other parts of the conduct regulations, including regulation 16.

Regulation 17, which is also being removed from the conduct regulations, requires employment businesses to obtain agreement to terms with hirers. Although it is important for employment businesses to agree terms with hirers, we believe that it is a business-to-business arrangement and that the two parties should have more flexibility when agreeing such terms.

Regulation 23(1) of the conduct regulations covers situations in which more than one agency or employment business is involved in the supply of a work-seeker. We propose to remove the provision that requires agencies and employment businesses to make checks on one another. We also propose to remove the requirement for them to agree the capacity in which they are acting, which will be done as part of the business-to-business relationship, without the need for regulation.

We will keep the provisions in regulation 23(1) on sectors in which fees may be charged to work-seekers, which generally happens only in the entertainment and modelling sectors. However, we propose to amend the regulation to remove the references to employment businesses. Employment businesses—organisations that place workers on a temporary basis and continue to employ them while they are on assignments—are not widely used in those sectors. Additionally, if an agency in those sectors uses an employment business to supply a work-seeker, regulation 12 should ensure timely payment for the worker in any case.

We also propose to remove from schedule 4 to the conduct regulations the requirement to include certain particulars in the records kept by employment agencies and employment businesses relating to work-seekers. Those records will no longer need to include the date on which the application was received, details of any requirements specified by the work-seeker in relation to taking up employment, and the date on which the application was withdrawn or the contract terminated.

The final deregulatory measures that we are proposing will amend schedule 5 to the conduct regulations and remove schedule 6, thereby eradicating the requirements to include certain particulars in the records kept by agencies and businesses relating to the hirer. Those records will no longer need to include the date that the application was received; the hirer’s name, address and location of employment, if different; the terms offered in respect of the position the hirer seeks to fill; a copy of the terms between the employment agency or business and the hirer; and any document recording any variations, names of work-seekers introduced or supplied, and details of each resulting engagement and the date from which it takes effect.

Removing schedule 6 will eliminate the requirement for agencies and businesses to keep particulars relating to any other employment agency or business. The amendments proposed to schedules 4 and 5, and the removal of schedule 6, will remove the burden of unnecessary record-keeping on agencies and businesses, while having no detrimental impact on the protection of workers.

I turn to the banning of overseas-only recruitment. The current regulation 27A prevents employment agencies and businesses from advertising specific vacancies for a job based in Great Britain in other European economic area countries without advertising it in Great Britain and in English either before or at the same time. As part of last year’s consultation, we sought views on extending the regulation to apply to generic recruitment campaigns. That will close a loophole and increase the opportunities for British workers to apply for British jobs. The proposal will not stop agencies recruiting overseas or in additional languages; we are just trying to ensure that there is a level playing field for British workers by giving them equal access to work through agencies.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

We agree with that part of what the Minister is proposing. However, does he acknowledge that, in response to the Government’s consultation, only two organisations in the whole country said that they had information about jobs that had been advertised solely in other EEA countries? Is there any further evidence that there is a genuine problem?

[Nick Boles]

I am happy to get back to the hon. Gentleman if there is any further evidence, but even two is two too many. The measures will reassure people. Even if the loophole is not necessarily being abused a great deal, the provision will reassure people that British workers are being given a fair crack at any job opportunity that opens up in this country.

That brings me to the conclusion of my introductory comments, and I hope that the Committee will support the regulations.

[Kevin Brennan]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Wilson.

It is a pity that all these proposals are rolled into one. On the latter part of the Minister’s remarks, I think we all agree with the notion that if agencies are advertising jobs generically across Europe, they should obviously be advertising them in the English language and to workers in this country, so that they have the opportunity to apply. He is absolutely right about that. Although the consultation did not provide much evidence of jobs being advertised solely in EEA countries, it would be interesting to know whether there is more evidence of that happening. We would all like to hear where, how and why that is going on. The Government are making a positive and helpful addition to regulation 27A through this statutory instrument.

I am pleased that the Minister did not skate over the other regulations, because they are significant and quite controversial, even though he may not have chosen to refer to that fact. Agency workers are often the most vulnerable workers. They do not have the same protections that other workers often have. Some agency workers are highly skilled and benefit from the flexibility of agency work, but many are in insecure and low-paid jobs.

Recently, the media have often highlighted a lot of the abuse that happens to agency workers in the United Kingdom. Their employment relationship is more complicated than that of other workers because it is a tripartite relationship—an agency is involved, as well as the employer and the worker themselves. They are often vulnerable to the abuse of travel and subsistence schemes; the underpayment of national insurance contributions; and the loss of contributory benefits, including the state pension, statutory sick pay, and maternity and paternity pay. Sometimes, non-compliance with the minimum legal standards and the mistreatment of workers goes on in the agency sector. Obviously, that is not universal, but those people are more vulnerable to such treatment.

In my constituency casework, I have come across, as others may have done, parents coming in with their children who are embarking on their first jobs as adults and being mistreated in the workplace. They feel they have no redress because the jobs were secured through an agency. That is why we should be careful when we seek to unpick regulations that were put in place to protect workers in more vulnerable occupations and situations.

As the Minister anticipated, I looked carefully at what he was proposing and, in particular, at the responses to the Government’s consultation on the proposed deregulation. A different picture is painted if the proposal is looked at from the perspective of the TUC, which, as is its wont, is naturally that of the worker.

The TUC’s response to the Minister’s proposal to remove regulation 9 of the conduct regulations was that it would have a negative effect on work-seekers, employment agencies, employment businesses and hirers; so not just on the workers. Its reasoning is that transparency is particularly important in the agency sector because of its transient nature and the tripartite relationship between the employer, employee and agency.

The proposal to repeal regulation 9 will remove the prohibition on employment businesses and agencies purporting to the work-seeker to be acting as an agency, while purporting to the hirer to be acting as an employment business, and vice versa. That is what the regulation protects against. The TUC believes that its repeal will increase the vulnerability of agency workers and could lead to work-seekers being misled into believing that an agency is trying to find them a permanent post, when in fact it is arranging a temporary assignment offering worse pay, fewer employment rights and less job security.

The TUC is also concerned that the removal of the regulation might encourage unscrupulous practices by some agencies. Interestingly, it is particularly concerned about the entertainment sector. As someone who has occasionally taken a musical booking, I have a particular interest. I should declare an interest as a member of the Musicians Union, Mr Wilson.

For example, an agency could be approached by a venue that is seeking to book an act. The venue might offer to pay £1,000 for an act. The agency could go to the act and say, “I can get you a gig for £500.” The agent informs the act that it is acting as an employment agency and charges a 15% fee, which is normal practice. That is £75 it is making from the act, as a fee for arranging the booking. It can then go to the venue and say that it has found the artist and they are happy to collect the £1,000 that the venue is offering. The agency makes an additional £500 on the deal by doing that.

The TUC fears that the removal of regulation 9 could lead to an increase in that type of practice. Will the Minister respond to the direct concern that it could open the door to more unscrupulous practices of that kind?

The Government also seek to remove regulation 11 of the conduct regulations. In response to the Government consultation, the TUC felt that the removal of regulation 11 could have a negative impact on work-seekers, employment agencies, employment businesses and hirers. It has held the view for many years that up-front fees to agencies in the entertainment sector ought to be banned. Aspiring artists can often be enticed into paying a fee to register with an agency, even though there is very limited prospect of their gaining work via that agency. That is why the TUC has expressed concern about the Government’s proposal to remove regulation 11.

I would be glad to hear from the Minister whether the TUC has a point, in that agency workers often face problems when agents negotiate deals on their behalf, including difficulties recovering adequate payments for the use of photo shoots in a modelling contract, for example, and enforcing usage periods. Those artists can be prevented under the terms of the agreement from contacting the end client. They are obviously reluctant to take action against their agents, because they depend on them for future work.

The concern expressed in the consultation, as the Minister must be aware, was that removing regulation 11 would reduce transparency and accountability in the agency sector, and mean that agencies were no longer required to notify the work-seeker promptly of the terms of any contract they entered into on their behalf. The removal of regulation 11 might make things more difficult for the vulnerable people in such transactions and make it more difficult for work-seekers to enforce their rights.

The removal of regulation 11(6) would mean that agencies were no longer prohibited from entering into contracts between a work-seeker and a hirer on behalf of both parties. That could open the way for agencies to negotiate unfair deals. I would be grateful for the Minister’s response to that concern, which was expressed in the consultation, and to hear why the Government feel they do not need to take it into account.

Concern was also expressed in the consultation about the removal of regulation 17 of the conduct regulations. Generally speaking, it is good practice for agencies and employment businesses to agree terms and conditions with the hirer in advance, before any assignments start. There is a case to be made that all agencies should be required to publish on their website standard terms and conditions, including any commission rates and charges. That would be a positive regulation to introduce.

However, that proposal is not being implemented. Instead, regulation 17 is being repealed. Regulation 17 requires agencies and hirers to agree the terms before workers are placed on assignments. Its removal will reduce the level of transparency. It could mean that agency workers are more vulnerable to exploitation and make it more difficult for them to enforce their rights. It could also lead to hirers and agency workers being charged unexpected fees during the course of an assignment.

Regulation 17(1)(c) requires employment businesses and hirers to agree

“the procedure to be followed if a work-seeker introduced or supplied to the hirer proves unsatisfactory”.

That is an important safeguard because it helps to ensure that agency workers are treated consistently and are not victimised. Removing that provision will increase the risk of agency workers being discriminated against because of race, sex, pregnancy, disability or even, in some cases, membership of a trade union. Again, legitimate concern has been raised about the removal of the regulation. This is not simply a matter of removing unnecessary regulation. This is regulation that provides important protection to vulnerable workers.

The Government propose to remove part of regulation 23, rather than the whole of it. Regulation 23 requires employment agencies and businesses to check whether any employment agencies or businesses to which they plan to subcontract work are suitable, which provides important checks. The Government propose to remove sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of paragraph (1), which will mean that employment businesses have less incentive to carry out effective checks on their supply chains. In the absence of prior checks by agencies on the suitability of subcontractors, the onus for enforcing minimum employment rights will rest on agency workers themselves. Removing that part of the conduct regulations will mean that there is no responsibility on the agent to do so. I would be grateful if the Minister explained why that important protection is not being retained.

I welcome the fact that the Government are retaining regulation 27, on which they changed their mind in response to the consultation. I also welcome the amendment to regulation 27A on advertising generically across Europe and only in languages other than English, which is a completely unacceptable practice, even if there was not much evidence of it in the Government consultation.

I will not refer to the schedules, because they merely give effect to many of the measures that I have described.

The Opposition are concerned that the conduct regulations are not simply an unnecessary burden on business. We want flexible labour markets, but the Government say that their intention is to retain

“those regulations required to ensure that people who are looking for work are protected against potential exploitation.”

A strong case has been made that many of the regulations that the Government seek to remove protect people who are looking for work against exploitation. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response before I advise my hon. Friends which way to vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Boles]

I anticipated that the forensic zeal of the hon. Member for Cardiff West would not be wanting today; it has never been lacking in any of our previous engagements. As ever, he asked some extremely good questions.

We are entirely at one in recognising that agency workers are potentially vulnerable and open to exploitation. When we started this process, we asked ourselves which laws and regulations protect those potentially vulnerable workers, whether they are being enforced effectively, and by whom. We may end up discovering that the only difference of opinion is that we do not think that the regulations that we propose to repeal or amend are, in practice, necessary to protect potentially vulnerable agency workers from exploitation, because there are other, more effective protections that can be and are being enforced.

I hope that our good faith is underlined by the fact that, as the hon. Gentleman noted, although we originally proposed to remove regulation 27, we listened to the feedback in the consultation, in which respondents raised concerns that it might disadvantage work-seekers if we removed the specification of what should be included in job adverts, and concluded that we should not remove it.

Let me turn to the regulations that we are proposing to remove or amend. I will do my best to reassure the hon. Gentleman. Regulation 9 prevents agencies from acting on one basis for work-seekers and stating something different to hirers. The reason we do not believe that removing it will put work-seekers at risk is that we have not received any evidence of that through the work of the employment agency standards inspectorate or from most of the responses. I acknowledge that the Trades Union Congress took a different view, but no specific evidence has been provided that employment agencies and businesses do claim to act in a different capacity. Therefore, we do not believe that the removal of the regulation will have a negative impact.

I guess that, if there is a philosophical difference between the Government and the Opposition, it is that we do not want to have regulations that are theoretically useful, but unnecessary in practice. We want to be persuaded that regulation is necessary in practice. I am advised that there are existing protections in contract law to protect people, for instance, from misrepresentation by an agency or employment business that cover the sort of abuses the hon. Gentleman is worried about. I repeat that the employment agency standards inspectorate, which sits within the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, has not given us any evidence of this particular situation arising.

Regulation 11 ensures that agencies cannot enter a contract with a hirer on behalf of a worker, and vice versa. It would most likely protect work-seekers in the entertainment and modelling sectors. The reason we have decided to remove regulation 11 is that we believe that sufficient protection already exists in those sectors through regulation 16, which ensures that an agency that is permitted to charge work-seekers a fee for finding them work must agree the specific terms with the worker, including whether the agency is entitled to act on their behalf in concluding a work contract. Given the existence and retention of regulation 16, we do not believe that the removal of regulation 11 is likely to have a significant impact.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the removal of regulation 17, which requires employment businesses to obtain agreement to terms with hirers. He raised the concern that that would leave work-seekers at risk of not being clear what terms of employment businesses had agreed with hirers. Again, we believe that the terms agreed between the employment business and the hirer are properly part of the business-to-business relationship, and that the two parties should have more flexibility when agreeing terms. The existing regulation imposes a potential criminal liability, which we think is disproportionate for such a business-to-business relationship.

The work-seeker would not be affected by the removal of regulation 17, as the terms of employment between the work-seeker and the employment business would still need to be agreed in line with regulations 14, 15 and 18, all of which we are not proposing to remove. We believe that the work-seeker’s interests are explicitly protected and that the agreements between the employment business and the hirer are, in a sense, a matter for them.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the amendment to regulation 23. It may be that there is a slight lack of clarity on our part here, although I hope not. We believe that we are amending the regulation to remove employment businesses from its scope. That is because this regulation mainly affects those in the entertainment and modelling sectors, where employment businesses are not widely used. If an employment business is used in such a capacity, we believe that sufficient provision exists in regulation 12, which ensures that a work-seeker is paid, so there will not be a lack of protection, even though we do not believe that employment businesses generally operate in the relevant sectors.

I hope that I have given the hon. Gentleman some reassurance, but I am happy for him to come back to me if not.

The hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts asked about the extent to which there have been discussions with the Scottish Government. The consultation was public and open to anyone to respond to. As he will be aware, employment law is a reserved matter, so we believe that most of the consultation respondents, both positive and negative, including the TUC, were acting as representatives of workers in Scotland and the other devolved Administrations, because employment law is devolved. We did not specifically consult the Scottish Government because this is a reserved matter.

If there are no further questions, I hope the Committee will see fit to support the regulations.

[Kevin Brennan]

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive and thorough response, and for the courteous way in which he has dealt with the questions from the Opposition. To reiterate, we support the proposed change to regulation 27A, although he did not offer further evidence that it was a widespread and serious issue.

The problem for the Opposition is that we do not feel that it is proportionate and appropriate to remove the other regulations, given that we are talking about members of the workforce and work-seekers who are in the most vulnerable positions. If anything, this is a group of workers that is becoming larger as the labour market and employment practices and patterns change across the country. We are not here to debate why that is happening, but I think we would all acknowledge that it is. As I indicated in my remarks earlier, my constituency casework has involved increasing numbers of people who are concerned about how they have been treated in the workplace after being employed via an agency.

Notwithstanding my gratitude to the Minister for his thorough and serious response, it is right that we register our opposition to the changes that he is proposing to the regulations, other than regulation 27A, by dividing the Committee.

Question put.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Since 1995, Europe’s share of commercial aviation manufacturing has risen from 16% to 57% of the world market because of the co-operation between France, Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom. Would the Minister not be better off having a word with some of her own colleagues than worrying about the Labour party, which is united in its support for remaining in the European Union? Does not that statistic provide a practical and potent example, which she can use with her Back Benchers and supporters, of why it is absolutely in the UK’s long-term interest to remain in the European Union?

[Anna Soubry]

As I have already said, we are indeed stronger, safer and better off in the European Union. I am delighted that the leader of my party, the Prime Minister, is leading the campaign for us to remain in the European Union. If I may say so, I was told only yesterday that the majority of Conservative MPs support the Prime Minister in Stronger In. However, I will make the point yet again that, unfortunately, the leader of the Labour party is failing in his duty to play a full part. He goes on CND rallies instead of supporting Trident, for example, and instead of getting out there and supporting Stronger In.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

As the hon. Lady will know, we work with many industries. I attend industry and sector councils, and we have strategies, including the metal strategy, of which I am sure she is aware. She will also be aware of the actions that we have taken, such as cutting energy costs, providing flexibility on EU emissions regulations, changing procurement guidance and looking at business rates, all of which will help the steel industry across the United Kingdom.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

If the Small Business Minister is right about Sheffield Forgemasters, why was it so furious about her words? Why did it make clear that it could supply 80% of the components necessary for Hinkley Point C? Should she apologise to the House, or can the Secretary of State do that on her behalf? What explains the answer that she gave to Parliament—ignorance, or lack of faith in UK steel?

[Sajid Javid]

The Small Business Minister has absolutely nothing to apologise for, and she was accurate in her statement. As I did the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), I encourage the hon. Gentleman to speak to Forgemasters himself. As I am sure he agrees, whenever we can use British steel for defence purposes, it is important that we do.