Deregulation Bill

Debate between Andy McDonald and John McDonnell

Wednesday 14th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

No, it is not, but a lot of those workers who were directly employed have in recent years been forced into self-employment against their will. That is the only way that they have been able to get work. If we consider the role of agents in a lot of this, we can see that it is a way of avoiding taxation for some.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend recall the words of Lord Denning many years ago when dealing with this very issue of bogus descriptions? Somebody controls the place of work, the rate of pay and the hours that are worked. We can call a Mini a Rolls-Royce, but it is still a Mini.

[John McDonnell]

I have been involved in some of the direct action campaigns on sites across London over the past two years. Few major firms are left in London that employ people directly; they now employ individuals who are classified as self-employed. They have not gone into self-employment willingly, but have been forced into it simply to get the work.

Let me go back to my major theme. Throughout its history, our health and safety legislation has been based on the precautionary principle of trying to ensure that we prevent as much as we possibly can the risks of individual sectors. I have seen the list that the Minister has kindly supplied us with this afternoon and, to be frank, I think—I am not saying this in any critical way—that if we are going to go down the route of having a list system, it would have been better for us to have had the list well in advance for consultation and discussion. Nevertheless, that is what we will have now.

Let me give some examples from the list. The category for high-risk activities relating to public safety includes the:

“Organisation and operation of exhibitions, fairgrounds, amusement parks, theme parks, zoos, circuses, public fireworks displays and adventure activities,”

but not festivals and concerts, which have some of the highest risks of such outside activities. For offshore activities, it includes

“operators, owners, installation managers, well operators and any persons under various Offshore Regulations”,

but some of the highest risk in the offshore industry is land-based, at the port, before the equipment is transferred out.

In years to come, we will define item by item what is on the list and what is not. It is all well and good publishing a list of what is covered, but if people want absolute clarity we should also publish a list of what is not included. Let me give another example, which I think came up in Committee. If a plumber—they are largely self-employed—is working in a person’s home, will they be covered or not? Are electricians working in people’s homes covered or not? I am not sure from this list, and that is the issue. All our health and safety legislation up to now has been based on the precautionary principle of comprehensive coverage so that everyone is protected, including the workers and the general public in whose environment they are working, but we are now in a situation where no one will know or be absolutely clear about their coverage. As a local MP I have used health and safety legislation on a number of occasions to get the local authority to take action against self-employed workers on particular sites that are putting the general public at risk.

Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]

Debate between Andy McDonald and John McDonnell

Monday 14th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I want to deal with a couple of clauses that have not been referred to so far, but before I do so let me express my support for the comments made by the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) about clause 31 and the concerns expressed by others about clause 34 and visa appeals. The abolition of those appeals will have a direct impact on my constituents and I believe that there will be a considerable backlash in the community. Let me also express my support for clause 29, which abolishes the offence of scandalising the judiciary as a contempt of court. I understand which case that relates to, but I feel that scandalising the judiciary should be a right, if not a duty, every now and again.

Three clauses have so far not been mentioned in any detail. The first is clause 16, on the establishment of the family courts. It has been genuinely welcomed, as has the introduction of mediation in the processes of the family courts and the greater emphasis given to it. Concerns have been expressed, however, by Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service officers and family law practitioners about the need to ensure that there is adequate insurance in the delegated legislation and the guidance that the views of the children in these cases are properly represented and protected. I hope that there will be further dialogue with professionals in CAFCASS, in particular, who will be able to advise on the detailed implementation of the legislation, and of this clause in particular.

Let me turn now to clauses 23 and 24. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) mentioned the issue with clause 23, which effectively privatises the functions of the officers dealing with the collection of fees. They are judicial functions, which is a step forward in privatisation that we have not seen before. Clause 23 facilitates the contracting out of all the functions of fines officers and makes provision for the cost of collecting compensation, fines and other financial penalties to be recovered from offenders. That will effectively mean contracting out the functions of those officers to private bailiffs. Let me remind hon. Members of those functions: the decision to make a deduction from benefits order; the making of an attachment of earnings order; and the ordering or varying of the length of time to pay or the amount of the instalments that are payable. Those functions relate to the exercise of judicial power and the sentencing of criminals and they are to be privatised.

My concern about that is that as Members we have all experienced the role of bailiffs in our constituencies. In its evidence to Government in the consultation, “Transforming bailiff action”, Citizens Advice reported that it was dealing with nearly 25,000 cases involving problems with private bailiffs. Citizens Advice said that it

“has been seeing problems with the practices of private sector bailiffs for many years and these problems seem to be growing. Unfair practices we see include: misrepresenting powers; intimidating behaviour; charging fees in excess of what is allowable in law; failing to accept reasonable (in the circumstances of the debtor) offers of payment”,

and failing to recognise vulnerable debtors in particular. We are now passing over a key element of the judicial system to private bailiffs, who have this record of failure.

[Andy McDonald]

Does my hon. Friend recognise that the court staff have had some significant successes in recent times, increasing the rate of recovery by 14%? Does he agree that that improved performance is to be welcomed and that they should be congratulated?

[John McDonnell]

My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. There are 2,000 people out there in the service, consistently meeting the targets set for them by Government and improving their record of service by 15% last year, not 14%, as he said. These loyal, dedicated staff, who are professionals in their own field, have delivered, yet are being threatened with privatisation. We are handing over this function to a group of people who we know are causing large numbers of our constituents severe problems as a result of their behaviour in the performance of their duties in other areas of fine collection and in the system as a whole.

All that is being asked for is the opportunity for existing staff to bid for their jobs. As the Bill stands, they will be excluded from being able to continue to perform the functions that they currently perform. Moreover, clause 24 would make available information held by HMRC to private bailiffs for use in the collection of fines. That is a step too far and it breaches people’s ability to maintain personal privacy with regard to their taxation affairs. That was never envisaged in previous consultations.

We have had experience of privatisation in the Ministry of Justice in recent times. Members in all parts of the House have raised the problems that we have had with the contracting out of the court interpreter services, which saw only 58% of bookings met. It resulted in chaos in the courts and criticism from the Public Accounts Committee.

I urge the Government to think twice about the proposed privatisation of an important service that is critical to many of our constituents, and to back the concept that what works is what matters. If the existing system is working effectively, it should not be put at risk as a result of what seems to be an ideological decision, rather than one based upon practice. It would be worth while for the Minister to sit down with some of the existing practitioners to gain their advice and, if the Government want further improvements in the service, to work with the existing staff—with the grain of the service—to achieve those improvements, rather than to go forward with this wholesale privatisation, which will prove to be not only counterproductive but, for many of our constituents, catastrophic.