Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

Yesterday was an emotional day for many of us. I am privileged to be at Central Hall with my constituents Cathy Young and her two fantastic daughters, Lisa and Nicola. I join the Minister in paying great tribute to the infected blood community. That community gave Sir Brian Langstaff a standing ovation yesterday—a sight that will never leave me. May I echo the Public Gallery’s reaction to the appointment of Sir Robert Francis? It is an excellent appointment. Will the Minister confirm that Sir Robert Francis will be able to meet the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood as well as others in the House?

With regard to the composition of the board of the compensation authority, will the Minister guarantee—I have already raised this with him—that it will include representatives of the infected and affected, and that they will have what we believe is their rightful representation on the board? I welcome his comments in relation to hepatitis B. That has always been one of the issues of contention, and some people with hepatitis B have been missing out on the existing schemes. Will he look to find a way so that those with hepatitis B can access the existing schemes? I know that the Scottish Infected Blood Forum has asked him that question.

On interim payments, the Minister mentioned the living. Will he clarify whether interim payments will be made to the estates of those who have sadly passed away? Some people will raise eyebrows about the fact that the interim compensation is less than that for those in the Post Office scheme. Will he give some explanation as to how the £210,000 figure came about?

I echo the comments of the shadow Minister on looking at criminal charges and a Hillsborough law, and I very much welcome his comments on memorial. Does the Minister agree that there are two other lessons: first, Members of this House, regardless of political persuasion, can get together to deliver justice; and secondly, for the general public the key lesson, as shown by those in the infected blood community, is never, ever to give up fighting injustice?

[John Glen]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his engagement and for the points he has made today. I was there yesterday for the two hours of Sir Brian Langstaff’s presentation of his report, which was a moving moment for all of those who have suffered and waited for so long.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his endorsement of the appointment of Sir Robert Francis, which seemed to be welcomed in the Gallery. I recognise that what is absolutely critical for the scheme to be successful is full engagement with the communities and that the explanation of how the scheme has been constructed and any concerns about the wider support that is needed are interrogated fully before the regulations come back to the House. Throughout, the scheme has been about reconciling speed and efficiency with consultation, which is why it has been done in such a way over the past few months.

The hon. Gentleman made a point about hepatitis B and access to schemes. I will be happy to correspond with him separately on that—obviously, there are lots of technical issues. He asked about the £210,000, which he can see is an irregular amount. That is because I was trying to get the maximum amount that could be universally paid, as quickly as I could, to those who are infected and alive without any risk of paying the wrong amount, and that is the amount that I was advised. What is really important is that we get to the examination of entitlements and what that balancing payment is, and get that payment out as quickly as possible. This is not a stalling tactic; it is about trying to reconcile the competing priorities of responsible stewardship of taxpayers’ money and getting payments made as quickly as possible for the most vulnerable in our community.

With regard to memorialisation, on these matters there will need to be wide engagement and I do not want to make binding commitments today. I have said what I have said, and I or another Minister will return to that in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Wednesday 15th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kemi Badenoch]

We encourage every celebration of the diversity in ethnicity that we have in this country. In particular, the Government want to emphasise equality under the law, the fact that there are not protected groups but protected characteristics, and that everyone should be free from discrimination. We know that in many events up and down the country, including in Northern Ireland, that is what is being celebrated, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for highlighting that in the House. We encourage all local communities to do just that.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

4. What recent discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on the potential impact of the Government’s proposed welfare reforms on disabled people.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

5. What recent discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on the potential impact of the Government’s proposed welfare reforms on disabled people.

[Chris Stephens]

The proposed reforms to personal independence payment unjustly target disabled people in a cost of living crisis. The Multiple Sclerosis Society found that nearly two in three people with MS said that the application process had a negative effect on their physical and mental health. Instead of pursing reforms that risk worsening inequality, will the Minister make representations to scrap informal observations to any PIP changes, as has already been done with the adult disability payment in Scotland?

[Mims Davies]

We want to understand how best to target support for disabled people and those with health conditions, to provide the right kind of support for those who need it most, and to ensure value for the taxpayer. Providing the right support to people who need it most, and understanding long-term health conditions and how people want to live independently and reach their full potential, is key to that. We must also ensure that disabled people feel understood and have a voice, which is why I strongly urge people to be part of that consultation and have their say. We want to hear from disabled people—that is what they say to me: they want to be heard and understood.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Wednesday 24th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I know what an important piece of work this is, and I know my hon. Friend’s commitment to campaigning for it. We have already provided substantial sums, and I am sure we will continue to do so.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

Q11.   As the chair of the Scottish arm of Feeding Britain, may I thank you, Mr Speaker, and those on the Front Benches for their tributes to the great Frank Field? He chaired an all-party parliamentary inquiry 10 years ago on food poverty, and food bank use has increased relentlessly since then. Will the Government consider, in Frank Field’s memory, a cross-sector summit with the aim of helping communities to secure the resources to deliver food security programmes at the necessary scale?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to Lord Frank Field’s campaigning. It is the case that over the past couple of years, we have provided more than £108 billion-worth of support with the cost of living, including extra cost of living payments of £900 last year. The effect of all that is that 1.1 million fewer people are living in absolute poverty than when the Conservatives came to office.

Infected Blood Inquiry

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd April 2024 Commons Chamber

[John Glen]

There is not a block. Last year, there was a process of looking at how we could work out the costs and the way of translating and operationalising the recommendations. That work is well under way, and Professor Sir Jonathan Montgomery and his team are helping with that. As I say, I hope that in a few weeks’ time we can get to a point where we will be able to make a substantive assertion of the Government’s position.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

Building trust and confidence requires the support of the infected and affected community. Can the Minister confirm that the independent body’s executive will include representation from infected and affected people’s groups who can make decisions on processes, eligibility and decision making in order to build trust and confidence?

[John Glen]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for his engagement with me last week as one of the co-chairs of the APPG, when he made a similar point. I am reflecting carefully on what it takes to satisfy the recommendation to have a body independent of Government while also securing as much authority and as much confidence among the different communities involved as possible. I will update the House on that in due course.

Access to Redress Schemes

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Thursday 18th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

I thank all hon. Members for a very thoughtful debate this afternoon. I have enjoyed all the contributions, which have raised some very important injustices. I will confine my observations to four issues: Windrush; the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign, or the 1950s-born women; Horizon; and the infected blood scandal. Each one has caused hardship. Each one has been scandalous, including in the way that people caught up in these scandals have been treated and been given warm words, but very little action. All involve miscarriages of justice and, because of the delays in redress, we find that many victims are unfortunately no longer with us because they have waited so long. We should take some time to reflect on that during this debate. There are people who have just not seen that justice, not seen that redress and not seen that compensation.

First, let me turn to the WASPI women. We welcome the publication of the long-overdue reports by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, which has found failings by the Department for Work and Pensions and has ruled that the women affected are owed compensation. However, it is staggering that, as the chief executive of that organisation said, the Department for Work and Pensions has clearly indicated that it will refuse to comply. That is unacceptable. The Department must do the right thing and it must be held to account for any failure to do so. I believe that, if the will of this House is tested on that issue, it will join all of us who believe that the Department for Work and Pensions must acknowledge its failings and urgently deliver a fast and fair compensation scheme for the women affected. Members could of course support the private Member’s Bill in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), who is trying to force the Government to publish proposals for that compensation scheme for women born in the 1950s.

We also have the Windrush scandal. Just like so many other issues that have been raised by hon. Members today, it is shameful that people have been waiting so long for compensation from the Government and that people have sadly passed away in the meantime. This year marks the fifth anniversary since the launch of the Windrush compensation scheme, yet nearly 1,500 claims from the Windrush scandal are still to be settled by the Home Office. A great grandfather who has helped advise thousands of victims of the Windrush scandal on compensation has said that he fears that the Government are

“waiting for us to die off.”

I hear that phrase all too often when discussing issues such this. There is a real sense from people that they believe that the Government are waiting for the victims to die off. The Windrush compensation scheme has been painfully slow, with 53 people having died while their claims were being processed.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the delay also adds extra heartache, not just because the individual has sadly died, but because then there is usually a legacy case which is passed on in a will, and that then leads to further complications, further delay and further agony for the families involved?

[Chris Stephens]

I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman has made that perceptive point. When the other place discusses the amendment in relation to infected blood, that is the sort of debate that it is going to have. It is the Government’s intention that the estates will be paid, but what the right hon. Gentleman says will confuse matters. Both the other place and this place will have to think about what that will mean.

The other issue with the Windrush scandal is that the Home Office is in charge of the compensation scheme. An independent body should administer that scheme. The Government tried to do something similar with the infected blood scandal, when they were very resistant to an independent arm’s length body being set up, despite Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendations. It is clear that the Government were nervous about that. The only reason that they tabled their amendment in the other place in relation to an independent compensation scheme in that particular scenario was that the will of the House forced the Government to accept an amendment to set up that independent body. I do hope the Government will consider setting up an independent organisation to administer the Windrush compensation scheme, as that is a far better position to take.

As I have mentioned infected blood, Madam Deputy Speaker, let me say that I welcome in part the amendment that has been tabled in the other place. What is missing from that amendment is a timetable. People are waiting for justice. They need that timetable to know what is going to happen. It is unfortunate that the Government have not built on the amendments that were passed in this place through the Victims and Prisoners Bill. There is, I am afraid, a concern that the Government amendment in the other place is watering that down.

I wish to pay tribute once again to constituents who have been affected by the infected blood scandal, affected by Windrush, and involved in the WASPI women case. The last case that I will mention is the Post Office scandal.

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

Before the hon. Gentleman moves on to his last point, does he agree with me that trust in politics has taken a real dive? The cover-ups and then the length of time that it takes to address the cases of wrongdoing only further harms the public’s trust in politics and politicians. In the case of the Equitable Life scandal, despite the ombudsman saying that people should receive full compensation, around 90% of victims have still only received 22% of what the Government have acknowledged that they are owed. That is despite the ombudsman making it clear that finite resources should not get in the way. Does he agree that an independent agency is vital to stop the public trust eroding even further?

[Chris Stephens]

I think that is true. I get the sense that there is an anti-politics feel out there. That is not just directed at some individuals; it is a systematic issue. I think that people get very frustrated at the systematic delays that can take place in order to find redress.

I wish to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) and to the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) who have done fantastic work in highlighting the Horizon scandal. I do hope that the Government act swiftly, because we have to remember that 250 sub-postmasters have died without seeing justice. I believe that justice for all is vital, because justice delayed is justice denied.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. Before I call the shadow Minister, I just want to emphasise to those who might be wanting to participate in the next debate how important it is to get back for all the wind-ups, including that of the SNP spokesperson. It is rather discourteous not to do so. Thank you.

Scrutiny of Secretaries of State in the House of Lords

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Wednesday 20th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[George Galloway (Rochdale) (WPB)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), my successor as the Member of Parliament for the most educated place in Britain. It was once said that the Glasgow Hillhead constituency had the highest pro rata subscription rate to the New Statesman of any constituency in the land. He showed it in the erudition, albeit on a rather Ruritanian state of affairs, of his contribution. I am grateful to him for securing this debate and for giving me time that might otherwise have been appropriated by him to make this contribution.

“Some chicken, some neck,” Mr Churchill famously said. To paraphrase Mr Churchill, some Secretary of State, some time. This is not comparable to Peter Mandelson being the Business Secretary in the House of Lords; this is a time of great international peril, where foreign affairs is undoubtedly the biggest single item in our inboxes. It must be true: there are millions on the streets. Well, it is certainly true of my inbox. There are millions on the streets about Britain’s foreign policy. There are demonstrations daily and weekly all over the country. People are seized of our role in international affairs. I have never known a time like it—and there cannot be many Members in the House who have participated in more foreign policy issues, from the 1980s until now—when our people are so occupied, and many are preoccupied, by our role in the world.

What I am about to say is in no sense disrespect for the current occupant of the Foreign Secretaryship. Quite the contrary: he is a big improvement on his predecessor, and he is a cut above his likely successor. I do not demur at all from the idea that Lord Cameron is a skilled international diplomat. Our problem, as a country which is forever lecturing other people on the quality of their democracy, is that we now have an unelected head of state, an unelected Prime Minister and an unelected Foreign Secretary, the second most important piece on the Treasury Bench. That is Ruritanian. It is actually rather absurd if you start to consider it.

The hon. Member for Glasgow North was adumbrating the possible outcomes of a lectern being erected just at that white line there. The microphones would need to be adjusted and faced that way instead of towards you, Madam Deputy Speaker. That is ridiculous. If there was a will, there would be a way. The silence from the Government in response to the Procedure Committee’s beseeching of them to find a solution to this situation is eloquent, as such lengthy silences always are.

We have a situation where daily, if not hourly, new and dramatic foreign policy developments are occurring. Just this day, for example, Prime Minister Netanyahu announced that the port being built in Gaza with the rubble of the homes destroyed in the bombing, including the skulls and the bones of the people destroyed with the houses and lying unburied under the rubble, is being built for the deportation of millions of Palestinians from the territory—an act of ethnic cleansing of the foulest kind. We would have expected a statement from the Foreign Secretary in the light of such a dramatic development, but statement came there none, and good has come there none. His able deputy—and I share the hon. Gentleman’s feelings for the Minister of State; he is a fine man, and I have known him for a very long time—cannot possibly cope with all this workload as, effectively, Lord Cameron’s deputy in this place, his vicar on earth; but even if he could, he would still not be the Foreign Secretary. We cannot continue to be a democratic country—

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[George Galloway]

Of course.

[Chris Stephens]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be brief, because it is very unusual for a Member to come in after an Adjournment debate has started and then to intervene. Let me add that it is important for everyone who does intervene to stay until the end of the debate.

[Chris Stephens]

Thank you for that strict reminder, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if he or I were to secure an urgent question, the same principle would apply and the Foreign Secretary would not be here?

[George Galloway]

Indeed, could not be here—for reasons which are what? Are they about architecture? Kindly guide me with your eyebrows as you normally do, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I am going on for too long; I am not entirely sure about the timing of all this.

As a matter of architecture, for a democratic Chamber to be bereft of the presence of its principal diplomat and the country’s principal diplomat, at a time of massive international tension, is completely absurd. On this day in 2003, our country went off to fight the most disastrous war that we have fought for well over 100 years. It was a disastrous decision, but at least it was a decision that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary of the day were ready to, and had to, defend each and every single day. The debates—not many of us who are here now were involved in them, except thee and me, Madam Deputy Speaker—were of the fiercest and most urgent kind. But we may now be on the brink of world war three. Little Macron may be about to march his legionnaires into Odesa, creating the gravest international crisis since the second world war, and we will not be able to question our Foreign Secretary about it. We will have to wait for the morning editions to learn what the Government intend to do.

War in Ukraine, war in Gaza, maybe war against Iran, war in the Red sea, war everywhere; Foreign Secretary, nowhere—nowhere, at least, where he can be questioned by the people in this country who are elected to question him. That is the point, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is our duty to hold Ministers to account, but by definition, in this situation we cannot hold the occupant of this office to account. We talk about great offices of state. At such a time of high tension, there can be no doubt that the second most important office of state in Britain today is that of the Foreign Secretary, but he is outwith our reach. We cannot, as we once did, rub shoulders with him in the Division Lobby; we cannot even see him in the Members’ Tea Room. We cannot bump into him in the Corridor. We cannot in any way impress on him that millions upon millions of our fellow citizens and our constituents have this or that concern or point of view on the great issues of the day. This is untenable, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am seeking to inject some note of urgency and passion into this because it is an untenable situation.

I wish that it had been possible to find one Conservative Member who was capable of being Foreign Secretary. It would have been much easier, and this debate would not be happening, but none of them was up to the job. It is therefore immediately incumbent on the Government to bring forward a solution whereby we are able to look in the eyes of the second most important politician in the state and press upon him the political preoccupations that occupy the concerns of millions of us.

Draft Trade Union (Deduction of Union Subscriptions from Wages in the Public Sector) Regulations 2023

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Tuesday 30th January 2024 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)]

I will have to jettison a large part of my speaking notes now, Mr Paisley!

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Trade Union (Deduction of Union Subscriptions from Wages in the Public Sector) Regulations 2023.

To cut to the chase, the Trade Union (Deduction of Union Subscriptions from Wages in the Public Sector) Regulations, also known as the check-off regulations—not Anton Chekhov, the 19th-century Russian playwright, but check-off—stem from section 15 of the Trade Union Act 2016. It is the last piece of secondary legislation to be brought into force as part of that Act.

The regulations aim to modernise industrial relations in the UK. They define a relevant public sector employer for the purposes of section 15 of the 2016 Act. That provision requires relevant public sector employers that allow employees to pay union subscriptions directly through payroll—a process known as check-off—to charge trade unions a cost substantially equivalent to the cost they incur for providing the service. In addition, public sector employers must be satisfied that there is an alternative way of union members paying their subscriptions aside from check-off, such as through direct debit.

Should employers not be able to secure payment substantially equivalent to the costs of providing check-off, and there is an alternative payment available to employees, employers must cease to provide check-off. That will ensure that check-off services are provided by public sector employers only where there is no cost burden to the taxpayer and to guarantee members have choices about subscription payment methods.

The regulations will not come into force until a reasonable transition period has elapsed to allow everyone adequate time to make arrangements to comply with the regulations. To that end, the regulations will come into force on 9 May 2024, six months after laying. That is a generous transition period, considering that the regulations were previously due to be laid in 2017, so employers have had a significant period of awareness of the impending changes.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

The Minister has said that six months is an appropriate period, but during the debates on the Trade Union Bill in Parliament, the Government committed to a consultation period of 12 months, not six months. Will the Minister explain why the Government’s position has changed?

[Alex Burghart]

The hon. Member will be aware from my opening remarks that the Bill that floated this idea was given Royal Assent in 2016. A few international events got in the way of our completing the passage of the secondary legislation, but we think that given how much time has elapsed and how aware everyone is of the changes, there is no great problem in moving from 12 months to six months.

The Government have also provided to the House the explanatory memorandum and a full impact assessment, and we have published on gov.uk guidance to be issued to public sector employers to help them to familiarise themselves and comply with the regulations. The check-off regulations will deliver value for money for the taxpayer. The impact assessment has identified that the intervention will equate to a present benefit saving of approximately £1.5 million a year. However, I wish to be clear that the regulations stem from the Trade Union Act 2016, which was introduced in response to a 2015 manifesto commitment. As such, and despite delays owing to other Government priorities relevant to the UK’s exit from the European Union, the coronavirus pandemic and so on, this has been a long-term ambition of the Government in our aim to modernise industrial relations in the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Nia Griffith]

I agree with my hon. Friend. The guidance issued has considerable flaws. It was not even available when the regulations were debated in the other place in December. The guidance is non-statutory. That means that employers do not necessarily have to follow it and can decide for themselves what they consider to be “reasonable costs”. Even within the guidance, there seems to be no mechanism for trade unions to challenge employers’ calculations of reasonable costs. The guidance states baldly:

“If no agreement can be reached and the relevant trade unions do not agree to pay the amount, then the employer may wish to consider taking steps to stop administering Check-off”.

In other words, it is take it or leave it. There is no pathway or mechanism for trade unions to challenge the employers’ calculations of reasonable costs or their decision to terminate check-off. In other words, there is no redress, and the trade unions are put in a position where their only options are to pay what the employer demands or end check-off. What a disgraceful way to treat their loyal workers and their workers’ representatives.

It is as if the Government have completely forgotten, or are choosing to ignore, the immense benefits of having trade union recognition in the workplace. Up and down the country, in both the private and public sector, on a daily basis we see trade unions and employers sorting out a whole range of issues amicably. Time was when Conservative Members recognised the valuable role of trade unions, but now one would almost think that the Government are looking to pick a fight with the trade unions and their own hard-working public servants. The Government’s draft impact assessment suggests there may be

“some loss of goodwill with employees and trade unions”.

There may indeed, and I would not underestimate the value of goodwill in services where so often we find individuals going above and beyond to deliver a good service.

Returning to the guidance, it looks as if the employer has carte blanche to allege additional cost. The example is given of additional cost being justified in the case of what is called “late” notification being given by a trade union of a change in membership fees—whatever “late” may be. This is from a Government who talked about a 12-month period, then a six-month period, and now they want to implement these changes by 9 May, leaving barely three months to have everything worked out. This is from a Government who, in September 2022, with no notice sent the financial institutions into a spin and left people overnight with hundreds of extra pounds to pay on their mortgages or their rent.

On the matter of consultation, according to the draft explanatory memorandum, it sounds as if the consultation was simply to identify the various public bodies that would be covered by this legislation. We read:

“No public consultation was carried out as the principles of this provision were debated extensively in Parliament during the passage of the Trade Union Act in 2016.”

Furthermore, we are told:

“Trade union officials and others gave evidence during the passage of the Act and the Government listened to their comments.”

Make of that what you will, Mr Paisley, but I do not think the Government were doing much listening. To say that now there is no further need to seek advice or comment or to consult more widely is shocking.

There has been no opportunity for either the public or the main parties affected by this legislation—namely, the employees and the trade unions—to feed back on its implementation, because, the Government say, they did this seven years ago. If there had been proper consultation on the implementation, there would have been an opportunity for the trade unions to raise the issues of how an employer would determine costs and what the process for resolving a disagreement over the costs would be, rather than the situation of no redress that the Government are now trying to push through.

[Chris Stephens]

The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. Is she not concerned, as I am, that there was not only no public consultation, but no consultation with the devolved Administrations? Given that the regulations will affect public sector workers and public bodies in Scotland, it is extraordinary that there was no consultation with the Scottish Government, who are their employer and who have clear manifesto commitments on industrial relations.

[Dame Nia Griffith]

Indeed I am. As the hon. Member will know, reflecting the will of the people of Wales, the Trade Union (Wales) Act 2017 disapplied devolved Welsh public sector employers from the provisions of the Trade Union Act 2016. Non-devolved bodies that operate in Wales are subject to the jurisdiction of the 2016 Act, however, so there is certainly an impact on people in Wales. There should have been full and proper consultation with the devolved Governments.

I hope the Minister will address this in his concluding remarks, but will he look again at what happens if the charges that the employer wishes to impose upon a trade union for providing check-off are considered unreasonable by the trade union? Will he look at working with trade unions and employers to agree some form of mechanism to resolve a disagreement?

In the draft impact assessment, the estimates for the scale of the use of check-off range from the 10-year-old TaxPayers’ Alliance figure of 90% of the workforce to the more recent Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy figure of 65% of the workforce. The TaxPayers’ Alliance says that some 22% are already paid for by trade unions, whereas the Local Government Association says that 67% are already paid for. One would think that the Government could, without relying on external organisations, produce an accurate figure for how many employees are served by check-off and whether the costs are recovered from the trade unions. They certainly expect trade unions to have accurate information on whether their members are up to date with their subscriptions when they ballot for industrial action.

The current cost of check-off, which is estimated to be some £1.5 million, pales into insignificance when compared with the latest figures we have of nearly £10 billion wasted on personal protective equipment. Only last Thursday, the Department of Health and Social Care published its annual accounts, and figures showed that some £9.9 billion of the £13.6 billion-worth of PPE that the Department bought between 2020 and 2022 was unusable, and its value is now less than the Government paid for it. Rather than scrabbling to claw back a few pence from their employees, the Government should be making much more effort to chase down those who ripped off the British taxpayer by millions and billions, but they have done nothing to recoup that money. That is why Labour is committed to creating a powerful covid corruption commissioner to help recoup billions of pounds that has been lost to waste, fraud and flawed contracts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

It is pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Paisley. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, my position as chair of the PCS parliamentary group and my membership of Unison, Glasgow city branch, which is one of the largest branches of that trade union.

What we have in front of us is not quite the non-controversial, bland instrument we heard about from the Minister. He suggests that a small change is being made, but of course he knows it is far more controversial than that. I think it is important to point out what can be deducted from a public sector worker’s wages other than subscriptions, as that will set the scene of what is really going on here. People can pay their bills, their council tax and their rent. They can make a charitable donation: when I was employed by Glasgow City Council, I made a regular donation to a South Africa charity founded by the great Denis Goldberg, Community H.E.A.R.T. A worker’s staff association subscriptions can be paid through deductions from wages, but a colleague sitting next to them who is a member of a trade union now faces legislation to curb that activity. It is quite extraordinary what other subscriptions people will allow to come off pay—employers of cyclists might come up with a scheme to promote cycling, for example.

We are in the collective bargaining arena, and it seems to me, as one who was a member of the Committee on the Trade Union Bill that discussed at length the arguments around check-off when the Government tried to stop it altogether, that once again we have a Government who do not understand or have little understanding of what takes place in a collective bargaining unit in a trade union organised workplace. I am concerned that the instrument reflects a bias toward staff associations and against trade unions.

I have tabled many questions on this topic in the nearly nine years that I have been a Member of Parliament. There are also legal risks: every time the Government have tried to do something around check-off, it has ended up in a court defeat for them. If they were a football team with that sort of record, they would be firmly in the relegation zone. Every time they have been taken to court around check-off arrangements, they have been defeated. It is worth quoting Mr Justice Supperstone’s remark in one such case:

“I am not impressed by the argument that check-off is only or primarily for the benefit of the union as such, rather than for its members in their capacity as employees.”

We have employees of public services who want their trade union subscriptions to be taken out of their pay packet, and the Government seem to have an issue with that. I cannot understand the Government’s fascination with this. A Government who are supposed to be all for small government and against state interference oppose voluntary arrangements between a trade union and a public sector employer. It is quite extraordinary, but we know why the Government have put themselves in that position: it is because they have for many years tried to curb the activities of the trade union movement. They are doing that because, as we all know, the benefits of trade union membership in a workplace are increased wages, better terms and conditions, and a decreased likelihood of being dismissed. That is a fact. It seems to me quite extraordinary that the Conservative party and this Government oppose those principles, on which the trade union movement of which I am a proud member was founded.

I am equally concerned about the lack of consultation with the devolved Administrations. It is quite extraordinary that we have public sector workers in Scotland, some working for the Scottish Government, some for a Westminster Department, some for other public bodies, yet there was no consultation with the Scottish Government. Is it because they would have been told by the Scottish Government that they were not interested in interfering in this regard? We know that any time a trade union has been approached to make a contribution to the employer for a check-off arrangement, it has met that request. Why do the Government want to interfere where the employer and the trade unions are happy for check-off arrangements to be made, at very little cost? It is more blue tape—not red tape, but blue tape. The most regulated part of the economy seems to be the trade union movement. It is a case of laissez faire in some parts of the economy, and Stalinism when it comes to these arrangements. It is extraordinary that the Government can go from one to the other, with no intervening period.

I am similarly concerned that the Government’s approach is in breach of International Labour Organisation rules, as we have seen in countries such as Congo, on which the ILO committee of experts reported that

“since the check-off system was abandoned…there has been no procedure for deducting trade union dues from workers’ pay.”

That is the agenda here: to have trade union subscriptions paid by other means than from the pay packet. It is a device to try to ensure that the size of trade unions in the workplace is reduced and that they are derecognised. We know that that is the Government’s agenda. This is not the uncontroversial, bland statutory instrument that the Minister presented; it is very much the opposite. If the Government push ahead with this measure, they will find themselves in court again, probably facing defeat. There are very real issues about that.

Last, there is the change from the commitment that the implementation period would be 12 months. I say this with great respect for the Minister—he and I were on the Work and Pensions Committee together, so I know how assiduous he is—that that is not an uncontroversial change because of technology; nor is it modernisation. The Government committed to a 12-month implementation period. I think it is disgraceful that they are reneging on that commitment; they need to be called out on it and to justify that change, as the Minister has not done.

This statutory instrument strikes at the heart of trade union organisation in the public sector. It is insidious, and I too will oppose it today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Afzal Khan]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Stephens]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alex Burghart]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton first.

[Alex Burghart]

I am pleased to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that the trade unions were consulted as part of the work we did during the passage of the Trade Union Act 2016. To be clear: for a lot of people, direct debit is much more effective. It is often much better for trade unions, too. Going back over Hansard, I noticed that in 2016 a number of trade union websites were actively encouraging members to move to direct debit, because they thought it was a better process.

[Chris Stephens]

Trade unions were doing that because at that time the Government had stopped their members’ rights to have their subscriptions come off their wages. The Minister said—after his distasteful attack on trade unions, which I hope he will reflect on—that this is clearly a reserved area. I accept that, unfortunately, employment law is reserved to this place—it would be far better if it was under the aegis of the Scottish Parliament—but industrial relations are not. Industrial relations are between employer and employees. Why should the Government interfere in the voluntary arrangements between an employer and a trade union?

[Alex Burghart]

The hon. Gentleman has answered his own question. This is a matter of the relationship between the public sector employer and its employee. That is why it is a reserved matter.

In his closing remarks, the hon. Gentleman said that membership of trade unions leads to higher wages. That was not necessarily the lesson of the 1970s. I hope he will reflect on that part of history. As for his reference to Stalinism, I should probably take that in the spirit in which it was delivered, but as we are having a political dust-up, I will remind him what Stalinism was. Real Stalinism involved the death of tens of millions of people at the hands of perhaps the most brutal regime the world has ever seen, and that was the result of socialism.

[Chris Stephens]

I listened intently to the Minister, and there are still some questions that have not been answered. In the time that we have left, and I understand that we do have time left, there may be an opportunity—

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Paisley. Can an hon. Member speak twice? The hon. Member for Glasgow South West has already spoken.

[The Chair]

The right hon. Lady is a very experienced Member and she will know that the Member may speak as many times as I call him.

[Chris Stephens]

I am grateful, Mr Paisley. As I understand it, when time is available, Members can speak—

[Dr Coffey]

Only with the leave of the Committee.

[The Chair]

Order. I have ruled on this issue.

[Chris Stephens]

Thank you, Mr Paisley. I was trying to help the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal.

There are still some outstanding questions. Given the Government’s track record in court in relation to check-off, how confident is the Minister that this particular statutory instrument will not lead to court action from a trade union or individual? It is important that before the Committee makes a decision the Minister tells us how tight the legislation is. This is a serious issue. The Minister is smiling, but he knows that the Government keep losing in court on this. How confident is he that if a trade union took this matter to court, it would not win?

Tributes to Sir Tony Lloyd

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

I think what makes politics interesting for the people out there are great characters, and there is no doubt at all in my mind that the great Tony Lloyd was a great character. Anytime you met Tony and you left his company, you walked away with a smile on your face because there was always some witticism that he had left you with to think about. He always made you feel better about yourself and politics. I remember Tony talking to me about his great love not just for Greater Manchester but for the city of Glasgow and of course his other beloved football team, Celtic football club, which he insisted was Glasgow’s No. 1 football team. As a Partick Thistle supporter, I can only say that he was nearly correct in his summation. He was very proud of his Irish roots, as I and many others across this House are. His work with the Parliamentary Friends of Colombia has also been mentioned, and for so many of us he was a leader in raising that particular issue.

I think we always have to learn from each other, and one of my first conversations with Tony was about the vital importance of a constituency office keeping tabs on the full moon dates across the year. We all know why, don’t we? We can never say it here in public, but we know why. Full moon dates are a vital part of a constituency office’s work. I will always remember this great man and this great friend. I hope the WhatsApp messages between me and him are between us and no one else. I say to his family and to our Labour colleagues: our comradeship and our love are with you at this time as we remember the great Tony Lloyd.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Thursday 18th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Esther McVey]

I refer the hon. Lady to the latest list of Ministers’ interests, which was published on 14 December 2023 and included the relevant interests of all Ministers forming the Government as of 14 December 2023, including the Foreign Secretary. Our clear-eyed position on China remains unchanged and our approach of engaging directly and robustly with China in the UK national interest is the right one and is firmly in line with that of our G7 and Five Eyes partners.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

11. Whether he has had discussions with Cabinet colleagues on the potential impact of the use of AI on the delivery of public services.

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Secretary of State in the Cabinet Office (Oliver Dowden)]

I discuss this area regularly with Cabinet colleagues. The Incubator for Artificial Intelligence, which I announced last year, will recruit experts from the private sector, academia and beyond, who will work with Departments to rapidly and responsibly develop new applications for artificial intelligence across Government, as part of radical plans to harness the potential of AI to improve lives and public services.

[Chris Stephens]

I join others in paying tribute to the great Sir Tony Lloyd; our thoughts and prayers are with his family today.

I thank the Minister for his answer. As the Government have started work on an artificial intelligence hit squad to eliminate civil service jobs and replace human labour, it is of urgent importance that they lay out the safeguards they will enact. The childcare benefit scandal in the Netherlands in 2021, where artificial intelligence baked in racial profiling that discriminated against minorities, highlights the necessity of strict controls and protections, so will the Minister reveal what steps they are taking to prevent the harmful use of artificial intelligence?

[Oliver Dowden]

It is not the case that this is about taking jobs off civil servants; it is to enable them to do their jobs better and more efficiently for the benefit of the public we serve in this place. In respect of the measures that we are taking to ensure that we follow best practice, the Government’s Central Digital and Data Office is ensuring a high delivery of quality and regular testing of that software throughout all stages of development. In addition, there is a service assessment model, so we are taking a number of steps to ensure that we guard against the risks that the hon. Gentleman highlights.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Johnny Mercer)]

I believe my hon. Friend is referring to Veterans UK, which is being retired because I am well aware of the plethora of issues. We have staff there who work incredibly hard but with very poor resource, and consequently the experience of veterans has not been what I want it to be. We are retiring that brand and completely revamping those services. I take on board the point about an MPs hotline, which exists in other Departments, and I can confirm that we are looking to establish the same thing in the new organisation to meet these claims.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

T4. Given the Paymaster General’s answers to colleagues earlier, may I remind him that Sir Brian Langstaff said yesterday that compensation proposals were published in April 2023 and must be dealt with urgently? Can he confirm that Sir Brian Langstaff’s proposals are being accepted by the Government in full and that there will be no watering down of the decision of this place when the other place discusses the Victims and Prisoners Bill?

[The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (John Glen)]

The next stage of the Victims and Prisoners Bill in the other place will be the week after next, and that is where the Government will make clear their response to what the Commons has decided. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) a few moments ago, the issue of further interim payments will need to be considered in the round as the Government consider the recommendations of the second interim report. We are very aware of the urgency of this. However, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will understand, there is a lot of complexity with respect to the different cohorts and we are working on those as rapidly as we can with the experts now in place.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Wednesday 17th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Baker]

I will answer in a couple of ways. First, only just over £1 million of that £15 million has been drawn down, which is a sign that the amount is sufficient. Secondly, the Northern Ireland civil service has recently announced that up to £10 million has been made available to assist small and medium sized businesses, with up to £100,000 available per business. The experience of her constituents—I have the figures in front of me—shows that this Government are committed to our infrastructure being ready for the future. That is partly why we are so keen to see the Executive back, with a large package to help support the stabilisation and transformation of public services, so we can get the kind of investment she refers to.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

3. What recent discussions he has had with the Administration in Northern Ireland on the effect of increases in the cost of living on people in Northern Ireland.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

10. What recent discussions he has had with the Administration in Northern Ireland on the effect of increases in the cost of living on people in Northern Ireland.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Steve Baker)]

The Government have taken decisive action to help tackle increases in the cost of living, including support for the most vulnerable households in Northern Ireland. We are targeting support this winter through a range of measures, including cost of living payments of £900. It remains vital that there is a functioning Executive in place that can deliver for the people of Northern Ireland, who deserve that stable Government taking the relevant decisions.

[Chris Stephens]

I want to return to the subject of public sector pay. Public sector workers in Northern Ireland have seen their real pay fall by more than 7% over the past year. Does that not demonstrate that the UK Government’s response to the cost of living crisis is leaving Northern Ireland behind? I encourage the Minister to join the cross-party calls to ensure that public sector workers in Northern Ireland are fairly paid for their important work.

[Mr Baker]

I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman raises this matter again. He will have heard what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said. I wish to emphasise that the money that has been made available in what is a large package for stabilisation and transformation in Northern Ireland includes a sum of money to enable public sector pay to be settled, but that is a matter to be decided in Northern Ireland. That is why we continue to press the DUP and other parties with as much force as we can muster to restore the Assembly and the Executive to deal with that.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

As my right hon. Friend will know, planning applications for new infrastructure are managed independently, so I cannot comment on specific cases, but I agree with her that it is important to listen to the views of local communities, such as those she represents across Suffolk and East Anglia. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) was visiting her area recently to mark the commencement of the project at Sizewell C, and I can assure her that relevant Ministers will continue to pay close attention to her concerns.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

Q4.   The Leader of the House last week correctly described the contaminated blood scandal as “on another level” compared with other scandals. Sir Brian Langstaff has announced today the publication of the final report of the infected blood inquiry, and he reminds us: “My principal recommendation remains that a compensation scheme should be set up with urgency. No-one should be in any doubt about the serious nature of the failings over more than six decades that have led to catastrophic loss of life and compounded suffering.”More than 100 parliamentarians wrote to the Prime Minister this week, so can he tell us when those affected will be paid compensation for their loss?

[The Prime Minister]

I am acutely aware of the strength of feeling on this issue and the suffering of all those impacted by this dreadful scandal. I gave evidence to the inquiry last year, and as I said then, I recognise the suffering that thousands have experienced over decades. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Minister for the Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) updated Parliament on this matter towards the end of last year. The hon. Gentleman will know that it is a highly complex issue. Interim payments have been made in some cases, and we are absolutely committed to responding to the final report as quickly as possible following its publication.