Blacklisting

Lord Mann Excerpts

Tuesday 5th September 2017 Westminster Hall

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

I will make one comment on the public inquiry. There could be reasons why the Government are a little reluctant to hold one, because, if we look at history, we will see that there were, of course, previous blacklisting organisations. We know of the unanswered questions—or rather, the unjustly resolved questions—relating to Shrewsbury in 1973, and we know about the Economic League blacklist. I put it to my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Chuka Umunna), to the House and to the Minister that we should not be scared of taking this on. I believe there were people working inside Parliament who were a part of the creation of the Economic League blacklist. They were working for MPs and using the facilities here. Who is to say that they have not actually continued those activities, because the same companies keep coming up?

Blacklisting happens to all sorts of people. I think there is a view among some of the more naive MPs that this is perhaps something to do with extreme militants battling away. Let me tell hon. Members about one extreme militant who was on the Economic League blacklist and was refused a job because of it: me. I probably do not fit the normal view of an extreme militant. Some would say I am far from it; I will leave colleagues to make their own judgment on that. However, when I was given a job in Manchester by Ciba-Geigy in the 1980s, it was withdrawn, which was a bit of a surprise. I asked them why. I said, “You’ve given me a job and now you’ve taken it away.” They said, “You’re on some list, and we’re afraid”—they were very apologetic —“we can’t give you it.”

Then, by some coincidence, someone got hold of that list, and it was made public. I remember very vividly a meeting at the University of London Union. I think Ricky Gervais was the events officer there at the time. I went in this student room and there were desks there. I thought I would go and see—nosey in; have a look—and I went through and looked under “M” and I found my name there. I have no idea why I was on the Economic League blacklist, and I do not know who put me on it or why. Frankly, it has not affected me, because I was not bothered about the job, unlike some people, whose lives and income and those of their families have been blighted ever since.

I could not have known I was on that list if the person who told me had not apologetically pointed it out to me. They could easily have not said a word, or said, “No, we haven’t got the money. There is no job there. Sorry. No contract has been signed.” I also would not have known if I had not read that the list was being shown—I read it somewhere; I do not know where—and thought that I would stick my nose in and have a look at the list, as you do, curiously. It was a bit of a shock when I found my name on that list. I wondered who it was who put it on there. I can tell hon. Members who it was, because I did some research in some good publications from the time. There were a lot of names of people in the Economic League, and some of those people were working for Tory MPs here, and there were Tory MPs in the middle of it.

Let us have a public inquiry and have everything revealed. Let us go all the way back through the 1970s and 1980s for those who have not gotten justice—I am not bothered about me; I will be all right—such as those in Shrewsbury. Let us have some justice there. There are a lot of people out there who do not even know why they did not get jobs that they went for. That was in construction, but it is not only in construction. I tell hon. Members that, today, it will be parts of the NHS where this kind of informal blacklisting is going on as well, not just construction. It is therefore crucial that we change the law, so let us get on with it and let us have an inquiry.

Exiting the EU: Science and Research

Lord Mann Excerpts

Monday 19th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

The straight banana syndrome, whereby some commentators would blame everything on the European Union whenever anything in the world went wrong, seems to have flipped on its head. I would now call it the Private Frazer syndrome, whereby the moment anyone mentions Brexit, everything is doom and gloom, with forecasts of everything going haywire and wrong. My advice to the Government on science and technology is the same as it is on other issues that run into Brexit—get on with it! It is the uncertainty that causes problems. The article 50 vote should have taken place in July, and if we were too busy with internal elections, we could have had it in September. It should already have been passed. Delay and uncertainty is what industry tells me they do not like and do not wish to see.

Let me advise the Government on what to do when the repeal Act comes—I hope they will listen. Make it simple. Every single piece of EU law should be brought into British law. If the Conservative or any other party wants to change that in the future, they will have plenty of opportunity if it is British law. Every single thing should become British law in one Bill in one swipe. That would help to remove uncertainty, and it would save us a lot of time to concentrate on other matters in the House.

I agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) that science does not see nationality. That is the problem with the European Union when it comes to science and technology, and, indeed, any other specialism: it sees nationality, but it sees nationality within the European Union. I have been involved in bidding for money, and I know that within the EU structures and rules, this or that EU country, this or that body, must be incorporated to provide the full mix, to the exclusion of the rest of the world—the other 170 nations, with all their expertise. That has been a strength on occasion, but it has far more often been a weakness in the EU. We should not see nationality when we are looking at science and research collaboration; we should see where the best expertise is.

I have spoken to many of my constituents, and several thousand have been polled. Something of a consensus is emerging in my area, and I want to share it with the House. The vast majority of people who voted remain feel that reducing immigration is critical to Brexit, while the vast majority of people who voted leave find access to the single market, in whatever form, perfectly acceptable. I think that the consensus is far greater than Members are prepared to admit.

What kind of immigration are we talking about? I do not think that my constituents will complain if Parliament decides that the big universities should accept students, teaching staff and experts in science and technology from abroad. Indeed, I will go a step further: I should like regional work visas to be introduced. My constituents do not have a strong view on which people Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland allow to work in those countries. They care about what happens in my locality. They care about whether we can stop Mr Ashley of Sports Direct employing 3.200 people from abroad and preventing them—my constituents—from applying for jobs, or reducing wages in adjoining industries. That is what they are bothered about. I think that, when it comes to where we need to be, the solutions are straightforward, although negotiations will always be complex. We need to get on with them.

We should bear in mind what we have missed out on. We were the leaders 30 years ago. We were world leaders in analogue technology, because we had the scientists, but our weakness was always to do with turning that expertise into manufactured products. Then there was the digital era. In digital microphones—indeed, in all forms of digital technology—we were world leaders 30 years ago, but we were wiped out because we were incapable of turning the technology into effective products, and the EU did not assist us in that regard.

We were also world leaders in the energy sector, but, classically, when it comes to science, technology and energy, the EU goes in 10 directions at once because of national pressures, and does not have the necessary coherence. Europe lags behind in energy technology. In the 1980s, we were world leaders in robotics—our academics were the greatest in the development of robotic technology —but neither we nor others in Europe were capable of delivering the jobs that others did. We skipped a generation in terms of application, and that applies to the whole computer industry even more graphically. We did not protect our embryonic industries and companies because we were not allowed to protect them, but now we are.

There is nothing wrong with control and protection when a new sector is emerging. It would be good for us to use our freedom to protect the blockchain technology sector, for instance. The geothermal sector will clearly be the next development in energy: we have that capacity again, and we should use our freedom to protect the sector and allow it to develop. We now have a great opportunity; we have always had the necessary ingenuity. We must allow our universities to retain their partnerships with, for example, German, French and Italian scientists and technologists, but also to have partnerships with countries in the rest of the world. We must use our freedom to protect embryonic industries, so that there will be production, jobs and wealth in this country as well as ingenuity and innovation.