Leaving the EU: Infrastructure in Wales

Debate between Stephen Doughty and Kevin Brennan

Tuesday 17th January 2017 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the effect of the UK leaving the EU on infrastructure in Wales.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Flello. It is also a pleasure to see so many colleagues from across Wales here today and, of course, the Minister, with whom we have debated these issues on many occasions. I am sure that he will enjoy listening to the contributions today.

We have heard the Prime Minister’s speech this morning. It is a great pity to me that she chose to make the speech outside, to the media and ambassadors, and not to this House. As I just said in the Chamber, that would not have happened under Churchill or Thatcher, but this lady does not seem to be for turning up to this place when it comes to this issue.

I have read what the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union had to say today. The Prime Minister did talk about the devolved Administrations and nations, which of course is to be welcomed. The Secretary of State has just said:

“We will aim to strengthen the Union between our four nations. We will continue to engage”—

whatever that means—

“with the devolved Administrations, and we will ensure that as powers are returned from Brussels to the UK, the right powers come to Westminster and the right powers are passed to Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast.”

I note that there was no clarity on devolved administrations in London and other places across the UK, but we are here to talk about Wales.

The Secretary of State listed the 12 principles of the plan. We are told that those are the totality of the plan promised to Parliament; he just confirmed that to me. There will be no White Paper. There will be no further plan. This is it: 12 principles. Among those, I do not see anything about regional funding or funding for infrastructure. There are some vague commitments on boosting science and innovation and making our exit smooth and orderly. However, when it comes to the fundamentals that affect the viability of the Welsh economy—the infrastructure we have to drive jobs and to allow business and trade, and all these things we are told will happen—we have absolutely nothing.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and neighbour for giving way. Does he agree that, if Wales is to understand what the Prime Minister’s statement means in relation to Welsh infrastructure, a White Paper really must be published, so that we can debate it and there can be a wider public debate on the implications of the model she has put forward today?

[Stephen Doughty]

I absolutely agree. That is pretty fundamental when it comes to relationships with the devolved Administrations and legislatures. It is all very well to say “engage” in this vague way, but what does that mean? Is it simply window dressing? Are we in the devolved Administrations just to accept whatever the UK Government come up with, without any question or scrutiny? That is even harder to do without a White Paper.

There was much in it I disagreed with and contested, but the Scottish Government before their independence referendum published a very detailed White Paper. We simply do not have that. We are told that these 12 principles and this speech today are all we have before we enter one of the most fundamental changes to impact Wales and this country for generations to come.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. She knows that I have long supported the principle of tidal power coming from the Severn estuary. There have been concerns about some of the projects proposed, but I am interested in and support the proposals for tidal lagoons—obviously each needs to be judged on its own merits—and particularly the Swansea one. So much work has gone into that and it is crucial that we now provide certainty on delivery and funding to enable it to go ahead.

Briefly, the chief of the EIB, Werner Hoyer, stated in October:

“Even if we find a way to continue lending in the UK, I am absolutely sure that the enormous volumes we have achieved over the last couple of years cannot be maintained”.

What clarity can the Minister offer on that issue in particular?

In his conference speech, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that beyond the autumn statement the Treasury would offer a guarantee to bidders whose projects

“meet UK priorities and value for money criteria”.

It is absolutely crucial that the Government outline what to

“meet UK priorities and value for money”

mean and whether that will cover projects currently funded by the EU. I hope that we will have some clarification on that, too. With today’s announcement of a hard Brexit package, in an attempt to appease certain elements in the Prime Minister’s party—as I said earlier, her Chancellor appears intent on pursuing some sort of trade war or commercial war with our European partners—it has become clearer and clearer that those who may suffer will be the ordinary people, the ordinary businesses and the ordinary working people the length and breadth of Wales.

[Kevin Brennan]

I am grateful, again, to my hon. Friend for giving way. He makes some important points about new infrastructure. Are there not also serious implications for existing infrastructure, including our industrial base—for example, the Ford motor plant in Bridgend—if we are seriously saying that we are not interested in staying in the single market? Should the Minister not be telling us how he is going to ensure that plants such as Ford’s have a future in relation to the integrated way in which motor cars are made across Europe?

[Stephen Doughty]

Absolutely. The same could apply to the steel industry. Companies such as Celsa, in my own constituency, that are part of a European operation have plants in many places.

National Living Wage

Debate between Stephen Doughty and Kevin Brennan

Monday 18th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[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.

Trade Union Bill

Debate between Stephen Doughty and Kevin Brennan

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Brennan]

My hon. Friend is right, and for some reason, that does not seem to matter to Ministers—

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Kevin Brennan]

I had not quite finished the sentence, but I will give way to my parliamentary neighbour.

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank my hon. Friend who is doing an excellent job as shadow Minister. He will know that I am transmogrified in my position, but it is a delight to be here speaking on this Bill again. Is not the greatest irony the fact that one of the architects of this Bill, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, stands up at the Dispatch Box at Cabinet Office questions extolling the virtues of the Government Digital Service and the digitalisation of online services in lots of highly secure and complex matters? That same Minister is one of the architects of this Bill, which does not allow e-balloting.

[Kevin Brennan]

One is not allowed to use the word “hypocrisy” in this House, so “irony” was the correct word for my hon. Friend to use.

As I was saying, none of this seems to matter to Ministers. Our new clauses also require unions to use postal ballots alongside electronic and workplace voting, where necessary, to ensure that everyone has a chance to vote and that members who may be absent from work due to sick leave or maternity, paternity or adoption leave will be able to vote. None of that matters to Ministers either. Our new clause allows unions to provide members with a choice of voting methods, including postal and electronic voting, and employers would be under a duty to ensure that union members can vote free from interference or constraints. The use of faster and more efficient balloting methods could also assist in the earlier resolution of disputes as ballots and subsequent negotiations would take place more quickly. But you’ve guessed it—none of this matters to Ministers.

I am sure that this Minister is going to trot out his line that he is not against e-balloting in principle, but that the Speaker’s Commission provided evidence of concerns about safety. However, the Open Rights Group’s evidence was based on comparison between general election voting in polling stations and online voting; it made no comment on the safety and security of wider forms of online voting. In any case, the commission’s report concluded that e-balloting should be available for all electors by 2020. The Minister could easily have allowed for the option for regulations to be laid within this legislation, which would permit e-balloting to commence when any concerns he had were satisfied.

There is no genuine reason whatever why trade unions should be the only organisations in the UK that are required by legislation to use postal-only ballots for elections and ballots. If the Government were genuinely concerned about levels of electronically based elections in the private sector, they would legislate for all bodies to be required to use postal-only ballots. They will not, because they are not genuinely concerned. Thousands of private sector, voluntary and political organisations use electronic voting every year. Electoral Reform Services alone manage over 2,000 secure online ballots annually, and a recent report concluded that online voting is no less secure than postal balloting. In any case, union elections and ballots are more tightly regulated than voting systems used by other organisations, meaning even less chance of a problem.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

I think that I would be equally guilty of arrogance were I to assume the role of devolved Ministers in the Welsh Government. However, the letter from the First Minister clearly indicated that a legislative consent motion was under consideration.

[Stephen Doughty]

The Minister for Public Services, Leighton Andrews, made it clear in his oral evidence to the Select Committee that he, too, was considering the matter. He also said today that the Bill, unamended, was

“an all-out assault on the devolution settlement”.

[Kevin Brennan]

I am always slightly nervous when I give way to my hon. Friend, because his expertise on all these matters is so thorough. He is absolutely right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

Whom shall I choose from the Labour Benches? I shall choose my neighbour first.

[Stephen Doughty]

There is also the absurdity that there are many other similar arrangements in place for charitable giving, cycle-to-work schemes or childcare schemes. It seems extraordinarily discriminatory to be acting in this way with regard to these voluntary arrangements for trade union subscriptions.

[Kevin Brennan]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and gives further power to the point that I am making and the point that the hon. Member for Stafford is trying to make by virtue of his amendment.