Oral Answers to Questions
Chris Stephens Excerpts(10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Johnny Mercer)
That is a good question, and I pay huge tribute to my hon. Friend for his work over the years; he did the “Living in our Shoes” report when I was in a previous role. Veterans’ affairs are outside the Ministry of Defence because veterans are civilians, not serving personnel, and they require all those aspects of government to work for veterans as civilians. He is talking about armed forces families, and responsibility for them remains with the MOD and the Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families. I am sure he will have heard those remarks and I stand ready to assist in any way I can.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Jeremy Quin)
I welcome the fact that the House will have the opportunity to debate the infected blood inquiry this afternoon. I look forward to the debate and I hope other Members will be able to be present for it. The Government have not yet set out their final deliberation on the arm’s length body; an awful lot of work is ongoing. A detailed study was undertaken by Sir Robert Francis and we had a fine second interim report from Sir Brian Langstaff. We are still working through the implications of that and we continue to do so.
Oral Answers to Questions
Chris Stephens Excerpts(10 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chloe Smith
I think the hon. Lady is on the wrong track here. I must say that I have not seen any substance to Labour’s approach in this field either, which perhaps will not come as a surprise—no doubt it will be covered more in 10 minutes’ time. What I would say is that we are taking the approach of ensuring that we do have the skills of the future: for example, we are investing £30 million in conversion courses to enable people from disadvantaged backgrounds to come into AI, so that they can be part of the technologies of the future, and there is a great deal more besides.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The Minister for Science, Research and Innovation (George Freeman)
Over the past six or seven years since 2016, this country has seen extraordinary growth in investment in our science and technology sector. Members do not need to take it from me: they can take it from those who track the investment. The UK has nearly 20 times more venture capital than its level of funding in 2011, and I am delighted to say that a majority of that—the fastest growth—is around the country. The east midlands and Northern Ireland have seen the sharpest increases in investment in the past four years, with growth in the east midlands topping at 300%. Something extraordinary is going on in this economy, and far from using Brexit as an opportunity to talk the country down, we intend to use it as an opportunity to lead in the smart regulation of the economies and sectors of tomorrow.
Chris Stephens
I thank the Minister for that answer, but the UK Government are pushing for a discount on membership in the Horizon programme, arguing that UK researchers have been disadvantaged by two years outside that programme. Does that not amount to the Conservative party openly admitting that cutting the UK off from Europe was damaging, and that we must return as a matter of urgency to European projects such as Horizon?
George Freeman
To be very clear, we negotiated membership of Horizon, Copernicus and Euratom specifically in our Brexit deal—it was the EU that held us out. Secondly, while we have been waiting, we have deployed over £1 billion of extra funding here in the UK to support our sector, and now that the Prime Minister has secured the Windsor framework, the negotiations are actively going on. I know that the Secretary of State will want to say something about that later. We intend to collaborate deeply with Europe and use our regulatory freedoms in the new sectors of tomorrow.
Oral Answers to Questions
Chris Stephens Excerpts(12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kemi Badenoch
I want to emphasise that the Government believe in the principle of individual liberty and in the humanity and dignity of every person, and in everything we do we want to make sure that we take the toxicity out of the debate. A lot of the demonisation is happening out there on social media. We have a responsibility to make sure that all trans people have that dignity and are looked after.
In terms of other things we are doing, NHS England is working to expand clinical capacity in adult gender identity services by establishing new pilot clinics rooted in primary care and sexual health services. Four of those new clinics have opened since 2020 and a fifth is opening this year. They will be able to provide a lot of the healthcare that trans people need.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue of women being able to progress and do well in work. That is why the Department for Work and Pensions has a focus on in-work progression, giving women who have childcare, training or other needs in particular the support they need to progress and thrive in work.
Infected Blood Inquiry Update
Chris Stephens Excerpts(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jeremy Quin
I am familiar with the hon. Lady’s constituency case, which she has raised many times. I am familiar with the sad story, which is one of so many around this House. I cannot add to what I have already said. I recognise the strength of feeling in the House and in the infected and affected communities. I am grateful that in Sir Brian’s report we have really thorough analysis for us to work through.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Does the Minister accept that the uncertainty of when the Government will fully respond to this report risks damaging people’s mental health? I am thinking about a number of constituents who have contacted me to say that there is a real impact on mental health. Can the Minister set out a timetable, or does he have a timetable in his head, for action? Does he accept the principle of making interim payments to bereaved parents and children, many of whom gave up their working careers or did not meet their educational and academic potential because of the years they spent caring for their loved ones?
Jeremy Quin
On the timetable, we are determined to be in the best possible place to respond to the inquiry when it concludes. As I have said to other hon. Members, that does not preclude us taking other steps earlier, if that is what we determine to do, as a Government. We are working at pace to go through all the implications of the report.
On the hon. Gentleman’s second point, he will appreciate why I cannot go through individual recommendations at this stage, but I recognise the extremely strong case that Sir Brian has made for a number of those who have been affected, including carers who have given up a great deal to support others.
Oral Answers to Questions
Chris Stephens Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Oliver Dowden
It may not surprise the House to hear that I totally agree with my hon. Friend. I am afraid we have seen more evidence of that in this House this year. When this Government brought forward legislation to protect hard-working people from disruptive strikes, the Opposition failed to support minimum service levels.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Jeremy Quin)
Civil service pay is determined at delegated levels between the Departments concerned. At the senior ranks of the civil service, it is more of a Cabinet Office responsibility. I have met the leadership of the PCS—I did so in January. There are ongoing discussions between officials in the Cabinet Office and the unions. We want to see this resolved, but I do not believe that matters are helped one iota by people going on strike and having an impact on the very people they are employed to serve, and I know do serve with great commitment and dedication.
Civil Service Pay
Chris Stephens Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Beth Winter
I thank the hon. Member for her contribution, and I will come on to recruitment and retention later.
There have been pay freezes and pay caps over the last 13 years. The situation has worsened in the past 12 months because of high rates of inflation and the lower allowance in the civil service compared with other public sector settlements. Civil servants had a paltry 2% pay rise imposed on them in the past year, which is more than 10% below the retail price index at its peak and almost 10% below the consumer prices index.
Civil servants, teachers and nurses have all suffered under the Conservatives’ low-pay agenda, and have all received a completely unacceptable and avoidable real-terms pay cut. The extent of the Conservative Government’s low-pay agenda is laid bare by the high number of civil service staff in receipt of the minimum wage. It is an absolute travesty that over a quarter of DWP staff are paid so little that the national living wage floor increase this April will push their salaries up. It is worth noting that when many Departments contract work, they insist that people get paid at least the real living wage as determined by the Living Wage Foundation, yet the civil service itself point blank refuses to guarantee to pay civil servants at least the real living wage.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Member for giving way and emphasising that point. Does she share my concern, and that of many others, that the statistics she has just quoted are the reason for an increasing number of civil servants using food banks in order to survive week by week?
Beth Winter
I thank the hon. Member for his contribution and I fully agree. I will come later to the stark figures on the use of food banks by civil service staff.
As I said, the past 13 years of pay freezes and pay caps have slashed the value of civil service pay. There is also the current civil service pay remit process, which is completely unacceptable. The FDA union describes the current system as “entirely flawed and incoherent” and as one that completely fails to allow for a strategic approach to pay, reward or meaningful negotiations.
Repeated pay cuts cannot simply be imposed without industrial disputes. Pay needs a negotiation between employers and employees. The current civil service pay remit process does not even offer the façade of employee involvement through the trade unions that even the increasingly discredited public sector pay review bodies are meant to offer. The end of national pay bargaining in the civil service by the Thatcher and Major Governments and the introduction of departmental and agency-delegated responsibility for setting pay continued the Tory ideological attack on the powers of the trade unions.
In the “Continuity and Change” White Paper, John Major’s Tory Government set out how, previously,
“centralised pay systems covered groups of staff whatever department they worked in, with settlements negotiated nationally between the Treasury and the unions.”
Even the claim that pay is delegated is a fallacy. Pay continues to be determined centrally. Ministers can, and do, still determine pay in these different bargaining units. That is evidenced by George Osborne’s imposition of a two-year pay freeze in the civil service, which he did without permission from the delegated bargaining areas. He was allowed to do that. That has been the approach for the past 30 years. It now applies to more than 200 bargaining units across the civil service, from the DWP to the National Museum of Wales. It is not logical, practical or cost-effective, and is certainly not fair. The fragmentation of the pay system has been described by the former Minister for the Cabinet Office, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), in his evidence to the Select Committee on Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs as the “balkanisation” of pay. I would like to hear whether the Minister agrees with that comment.
What is the cost to the Government, both in finance and efficiency, given the duplication of human resource process, of changes to payroll procedures across so many units? It is just not cost-effective. Although civil service Departments essentially follow the same grading structure, the salaries paid at different levels by different Departments mean increasing disparities, resulting in significant inequalities. There has been an entrenchment of inequalities that existed in the 1990s, and an opening up of new gaps that did not even exist then. The PCS union has argued that as a result there has been an entrenchment of historic gender and ethnicity pay caps, and the development of pay differentials across Departments for the same grades. That includes women being paid less than men, and the pay process has not allowed them to break out of that. Last year, Civil Service World reported how the civil service’s median gender pay gap had widened for the first time in six years, with a gender gap in average hourly earnings of 11.3%. In most cases, where large median pay gaps exist, it is because there is a higher proportion of men in senior and more highly paid roles, or of women in more junior roles. The PCS has argued that, as civil servants are increasingly being co-located into regional hubs organised by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and by the Government Property Agency, the difference in pay between staff at the same grades is becoming increasingly apparent—so much so that the PCS has said that it is preparing to begin large-scale equal pay challenges, bringing cases on behalf of women in one bargaining unit against men in another.
Ethnicity pay gaps are also a significant cause for concern. Black members of staff are disproportionately employed in lower paid areas of the civil service. Only this morning, we heard shocking evidence of racism in the Cabinet Office from trade unions giving evidence to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. Regional inequalities have also been identified. For example, a median civil servant at administration assistant or officer level at the Ministry of Defence earns just over £20,000, whereas their equivalent in the Welsh Government earns around £24,500, nearly as much as the median executive officer, a grade higher, at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.
The evidence clearly shows that the pay structures across the civil service are unequal, dysfunctional, broken and in urgent need of reform. The situation hinders the delivery of an efficient service, so the transfer of staff between Departments is complicated in the absence of a uniform and fair pay system, while the unfair pay differentials create obstacles to achieving effective joint working within or between Departments. As others have mentioned, poor pay and terms and conditions within the civil service are also resulting in recruitment and retention problems, which, in turn, are also very costly for the Government.
Analysis by the Institute for Government reveals that turnover in the civil service is the highest it has been for a decade, and that the recruitment and retention of highly skilled staff is a particular cause for concern. It stated:
“The National Audit Office, the Public Accounts Committee, Ministers and civil servants have described how a lack of specialist skills in areas from digital to finance has contributed to delays, cost overruns or policy and operational failures.”
Research commissioned by Prospect and the FDA this year concluded that in order to ensure that the civil service can recruit and retain the high numbers of staff required, it is essential that the Government urgently address the poor levels of civil service pay. That is all having a significant detrimental impact on staff.
In PACAC this morning, we discussed the civil service people’s survey and we heard shocking evidence of harassment, bullying, discrimination and racism in the civil service. I will just quote some startling figures from a recent PCS survey of its members: 85% said that the cost of living crisis has impacted their mental and physical health; over half fear losing their home; 40% say that they have used credit to pay for essential shopping; and almost a fifth say that they have missed work because of their inability to afford transport or fuel. As the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) has said, 40,000 are using food banks, and 47,000 people are claiming universal credit because pay is so low. That is totally unacceptable and that is why civil service staff have been driven—forced—to take industrial action.
Nobody makes the decision to take industrial action lightly; it is very much a last resort. It is not a choice but a necessity that has been forced on civil service staff. Since December, PCS has been engaged in a series of targeted industrial action across many Departments, including the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, the DWP and Border Force. That is why we will see over 130,000 civil servants take strike action on Budget day next week in an attempt to make this Government listen and improve their offer. PCS is not alone. The poor pay outcomes have also led the Prospect union to ballot its members and they have also overwhelmingly voted for industrial action. Even the fast-streamers organised by the FDA have voted for industrial action.
I am very conscious that some Government Members have sought many a time to assert that rising wages cause inflation by creating a wage spiral. I am confident that the Minister is aware that that does not stand up to scrutiny. Research by James Meadway for the General Federation of Trade Unions, cited in a recent pamphlet, said:
“Whatever it is that is driving inflation in the UK, it is not high wages. Wages have been low for a long time and are now falling very fast.”
Independent analysis commissioned from Incomes Data Research by Prospect and the FDA argues that,
“public sector pay rises might only lead to an increase in inflation if they at least matched or were higher than current rates of inflation, and then only if private sector employers followed suit, and then only if these employers then decided to deliberately pass on this aspect of increasing costs directly to consumers in the form of price rises.”
If the Government truly believe that they do not have the resources to fund the pay rise, they need to make it clear they will end some of the tax inequalities that continue to let the wealthiest off the hook and will introduce a new measure of wealth taxation.
Previously, I have highlighted what such measures might include, including the equalisation of the rate of capital gains tax with income tax, which, in a single measure, would raise up to £14 billion. The money is there; it is a political choice not to use it. The Government can afford to pay civil servants, all public sector workers and everybody who has been forced to strike a decent wage.
I will move to a conclusion. There are a number of issues that need addressing and I would welcome the Minister’s response to them. We need an audit of pay differentials impacting gender and ethnicity across Departments, an audit of pay differentials at the same employment grades across Departments, a grouping of agencies around their main Government Departments to harmonise pay arrangements and an acceptance of the need for pay remits that move the civil service towards national pay rates, which will establish moving floors at different grades and the safeguarding of differentials between grades. That should be a step on the way to the re-establishment of a national pay bargaining process that ends the refusal to negotiate with trade unions.
Indeed, Labour’s deputy leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), and her predecessor on the employment rights brief, my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), have set out that fair pay agreements will be negotiated through sectoral collective bargaining, reversing the decades-long decline in collective bargaining coverage. I am not asserting that that is a manifesto commitment to national pay bargaining for the civil service, but it is clear evidence of the direction in which the party intends to move. I refer people to the Labour party’s excellent “ A New Deal for Working People” employment rights Green Paper for more information.
Such an approach is essential in order to tackle the problems of insecurity, inequality, discrimination, enforcement, low pay and the raft of other issues that I outlined in my speech. Urgent action is also required, with the Government’s commitment to hold constructive talks with PCS to resolve the current dispute. In next week’s Budget announcement, we need a revision of the 2022-23 civil service pay remit that reflects an understanding that a 10% rise and a living wage of at least £15 an hour are wholly affordable—wholly in this Government’s grasp—and do not require a reduction in service provision. We need a reformed pay bargaining process for the civil service and across the public sector, and an end to the Tory low-pay agenda of holding down public sector pay. Diolch yn fawr, Mr Pritchard.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Pritchard. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, particularly my position as chair of the PCS parliamentary group. I thought I would do that, Mr Pritchard, because we usually hear shouts from the Conservative Benches about the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, but I notice that those Members are on strike today. No one from the Conservative Back Benches is here to take part.
Who are the heroes of the pandemic? I would suggest that among those heroes are those who worked in the civil service, such as those who were in the Department for Work and Pensions when there was an explosion of universal credit claims that had to be processed and of people to be paid on time. It was those people who made sure that universal credit payments were paid on time, helping those in need. The heroes of the pandemic include those who worked in HMRC, who had to make sure that businesses, including small businesses, received furlough payments to help ensure that the economic wheels were turning. They include those in the civil service who put together the rules and regulations to update the public on what to do and how to comply with covid regulations, to ensure that the public were safe and protected.
As such, what is astonishing about this debate—as the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter), who secured the debate, has outlined—is that the civil service seems to be treated worst of all across the public sector. Frankly, that is a disgrace. I want to concentrate on the economic case for giving civil servants and other public sector workers a real-terms pay rise. I note that in his demands for the Budget, my good friend the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), the leader of the SNP group, has said that we must have pay rises that match inflation. It is not public sector pay that increases inflation: it is prices. Food inflation is currently around 13%, yet we are offering some public sector workers 2% or 3%: that is not going to help them feed their families, and it is not going to help them going forward. We need to look very seriously at this situation.
The Conservative Government keep telling us that they are the party of efficiency and small government, yet they allow a situation in which there are over 200 separate pay negotiations across the civil service for those who work for the Westminster Government. The fact that so many different pay negotiations are being carried out across the civil service is something that you really could not make up. If the Conservative Government allow that situation to develop going forward, they are opening themselves up to equal pay claims, and I hope the Minister will tell us how they are going to cut the number of pay negotiations. There should be one set of pay negotiations covering those who work for the Westminster Government.
I know that many colleagues want in, Mr Pritchard, so the final point I will make is this: if people are talking, they are not walking. Far too often, we hear Government Members blaming society’s problems on not just refugees, as we heard in the main Chamber earlier, but trade unions. “It is the trade unions’ fault that we have so many societal problems at the moment”—what a risible argument! If the Government keep pursuing that level of tactic and introducing such rubbish legislation, such as the so-called minimum service levels legislation, it is only going to intensify the situation and make it worse. I want to hear from the Government how they are actually going to sit around the table and enter into meaningful negotiations like other Administrations do, including the Scottish Government.
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
I will have to enforce an informal time limit of five minutes.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) on securing the debate, as I welcome the opportunity to discuss these issues. I am sure the Chancellor will have heard her remarks. The Government are obviously in the process of preparing for the Budget in the very near future.
At the outset, I want to join all Members in recognising the extraordinary hard work and dedication of the civil service. I cannot accept the remarks made—admittedly, as an aside—by the hon. Members for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) and for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) about how the Government are in some way scapegoating civil servants. That is absolutely not the case. It was not the case in the urgent question in the House yesterday. Obviously, a lot of people in the Cabinet Office are sad about what has happened over the past few days, but that in no way detracts from our huge respect for our exceptional civil servants, on whom we rely every single day. It is important for me to put that on the record.
As right hon. and hon. Members will undoubtedly be aware, civil service pay is determined by separate processes for delegated grades—typically grade 6 and below—and the senior civil service. For delegated grades, the Cabinet Office publishes the pay remit guidance annually. The guidance is a cost control document setting out the parameters of average awards in a pay remit year for Departments. For the senior civil service, the Senior Salaries Review Body makes independent recommendations to the Government based on evidence provided by the Government and data from recognised trade unions and the labour market.
In the 2021 spending review, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the end of the temporary pay pause in the public sector, including the civil service, starting from the year 2022-23, throughout the duration of the spending review period to 2024-25. The strong recovery in the economy and labour market at that time allowed us to return to a normal pay setting process. Again, right hon. and hon. Members will be aware that new challenges then emerged. We are operating now in a very different economic environment. Higher than expected global energy and goods prices have already led to unavoidable increases in the cost of living in the UK, and the repercussions of Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine have added considerably to those pressures.
Last year, the civil service pay remit guidance allowed Departments to make awards of up to 3%, which we absolutely recognise is below inflation. The Government of course recognise the significant strain that cost of living pressures are putting on everyone, including civil servants, and this Government have been helping with energy support and other cost of living payments for the most vulnerable.
Chris Stephens
The Minister mentioned the pay remit guidance. For clarity, can he confirm that the pay remit guidance is one document—that there is only one piece of pay remit guidance? If so, why are there 200 sets of negotiations across Westminster Government Departments?
Alex Burghart
The hon. Gentleman will be glad to hear that I will come to that point very soon.
As everyone will, I hope, appreciate, the Government put fiscal responsibility at the very centre of our policy, and we are taking appropriate steps to manage inflation. Obviously, at the moment, it is not public sector wages that are driving inflation. Many factors are driving inflation. Inflation is besetting our closest friends and competitors around the world; it is an international problem. However, if we were to take the advice of the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) and others, we would find ourselves in trouble.
The Governor of the Bank of England and its chief economist have both said that inflation-matching pay rises in the public sector can spill over into higher pay across the economy, and that would make the fight against inflation even more challenging. That is why halving inflation is the top of the Prime Minister’s five immediate priorities, alongside growing the economy, reducing national debt, getting the NHS backlog down and stopping small boats crossing the channel. Our focus is on pay for 2023-24.
Alex Burghart
I will come back to the hon. Gentleman’s point.
Salaries for junior grades in the civil service remain comparable with private or public sector equivalents. Many civil servants also benefit from defined benefit schemes, where employers contribute around 27% of earnings. In contrast, most private sector employees receive defined contribution pensions, which are dependent on investment performance, and where employer contributions are typically around half those in the public sector.
As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, pay arrangements for civil servants below the senior civil service are delegated to Departments as separate employers. That has been the case since 1996, and was not a position overturned by the previous Labour Government. The annual pay remit guidance sets out the financial parameters within which civil service Departments can determine pay awards for their staff. Negotiations take place between organisations and trade unions. The Cabinet Office does not negotiate or consult on pay or changes to terms and conditions outside the civil service management code. Ultimately, it is for Departments to decide on their pay awards and how they are structured, in the light of their own budgets and priorities, and to negotiate with their trade unions.
There are many merits to the delegated model, as the last Labour Government recognised. Civil service Departments deal with many different, complex issues. That means it is really important that Departments continue to have the flexibility to tailor their own pay and grading arrangements to enable them to recruit, retain and reward the hard-working civil servants who deliver for them.
Pay remit guidance also allows Departments to seek further flexibility for a pay award above the headline range for pay awards. That has enabled some Departments to make higher awards to their staff in return for productivity and efficiency gains, or to reform terms and conditions of employment, in order to deliver transformational reform. That has been demonstrated in pay deals at His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Ministry of Justice in recent years.
We continue to explore opportunities for greater coherence for reward in future years in support of civil service challenges and priorities, which is where the work of cross-Government professions and functions have a particularly valuable role to play. The Minister for the Cabinet Office met with some of the main civil service unions on 12 January to listen to their representations on pay, as part of an exchange of information to inform pay for 2023-24. That is supported by continuing dialogue at official level.
The Government remain committed to holding discussions about pay for 2023-24. We want to work constructively with the civil service trade unions as the Government consider the pay remit guidance, the delegated grades and the evidence to the Senior Salaries Review Body on senior civil service pay. I am confident that when we announce the 2023-24 civil service pay remit guidance, we will continue to strike the balance between appropriate reward and the need to live within our means as a nation.
Chris Stephens
The Minister has confirmed that there is one pay remit guidance. Do the Government have any plans to cut the numbers of negotiations? There are currently more than 200 across Westminster Government Departments.
Alex Burghart
The hon. Gentleman will have heard me say that we consider there to be many advantages to this model.
The purpose of Westminster Hall debates is for the Minister to come and listen to what colleagues in the House have to say. It was interesting, listening to the hon. Member for Vauxhall, to hear that a lot of the positions from the Labour Back Benches do not necessarily accord with the position of the Labour Front Bench. I wonder whether one of the things that is happening in this Westminster Hall debate is an internal debate within the Labour party being aired in public. There was no position from the Labour Front-Bench spokesperson on collective bargaining, on the pay offer, or on PCS strike actions.
Oral Answers to Questions
Chris Stephens Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David T. C. Davies
I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend; he is absolutely right. Money is being wasted in the Senedd, for example on spending up to £100 million on increasing the number of Senedd Members at a time of economic difficulty. [Interruption.] I hope Opposition Members who are chuntering are listening carefully to what my hon. Friend has to say.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
I understand that people across the UK are worried about the cost of living, which is why we have taken decisive action to support households and businesses across the UK, while remaining fiscally responsible. That support includes a £26 billion package for the next financial year, which will be targeted at protecting the most vulnerable.
Chris Stephens
Almost half of adults UK-wide say the cost of living crisis is harming their mental health, and that rises to 61% of Welsh adults. Devolved initiatives such as the fuel support scheme in Wales help, but inflation and UK Government cuts put such schemes in jeopardy. How does the Secretary of State justify his Government’s repeated refusal to support devolved Governments in tackling the crisis his party has created?
Oral Answers to Questions
Chris Stephens Excerpts(1 year, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Jeremy Quin)
The Cabinet Office is not the employer of all civil servants, and Departments are responsible for engaging with recognised trade unions at departmental and local level. The Public and Commercial Services Union is currently in dispute with a number of civil service employers and has called for strike action in several Departments. We remain open to continued dialogue to bring about a resolution.
Jeremy Quin
As the hon. Lady said, 214 ballots took place and 124 hit the relevant thresholds for strike action. That is something I greatly regret, because it will impact the citizens of this country and how they go about their day-to-day work. We will do our utmost to mitigate that and protect the people from the impact of those strikes, but they should not be taking place and I very much regret that they are. I hope that the hon. Lady and this House will recognise that with inflation at 11%, providing an 11% increase across the public sector would equate to about £28 billion—just under £1,000 per household. So I really regret that the unions have felt it necessary to take this action. Our door remains open; we would like to speak to them. We would rather that this was not taking place, but we have to be realistic about the constraints on public expenditure at present.
Chris Stephens
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. With workers in 124 Government departments and public bodies now having that mandate for strike action, a responsible Government would get around the table for meaningful talks with the civil service trade unions. Is that happening? Will the Minister explain how the Government intend to avoid the widespread disruption, and how they plan to bring forward a fair deal on pay, investment in jobs and an end to the attack on terms and conditions for civil service workers?
Jeremy Quin
We will do our utmost to ensure that public services continue and that the public do not suffer as a result of these strikes, although inconvenience is inevitable when strike action of this nature takes place. I regret that it is taking place. I hope that the workers involved will not go on strike and will continue to work in the public interest. We really value the work and the services they do, but there has to be a recognition that the scale of demands being made on us is not affordable for the taxpayer at this time. That is sad, but it is a fact.
Infected Blood Inquiry and Compensation Framework
Chris Stephens Excerpts(1 year, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dame Diana Johnson
Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right in saying that.
I now turn to the three things I seek from the Minister in his remarks. First, I want him to pledge today that the Government will implement the infected blood inquiry recommendations in full. That would clearly demonstrate the Government’s commitment to deliver justice to the victims and their families. I also want him to confirm the date of the publication of the Government’s full response to Sir Robert’s study.
My second ask is for preparation. I want the Government —now—to prepare a full compensation framework. Please do not wait months to start this vital process and delay access to redress. Payments need to be made in a timely way and the process needs to be expeditious. We need a clear timetable of action from the Government. Specifically, how will infected and affected people be involved in the establishment and operation of the compensation framework, just as they have been at the heart of Sir Brian Langstaff’s inquiry? I want to echo the mantra: nothing about us without us. Can the Minister also confirm that work has already started on the setting up of the compensation framework in anticipation of Sir Brian’s final recommendations? What resources have the Government allocated to the setting-up costs and the operation of the compensation framework? When will the process of registering bereaved parents, carers, children and dependants, to ensure that they receive compensation, begin? How will the Government address the needs of people affected by the infected blood scandal who fall through the gaps of the restricted frameworks for financial assistance available today—particularly for those whose medical records were lost or destroyed?
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The right hon. Lady is absolutely right about the medical records. There is also the case of individuals who were caring for people as well. They too must be compensated, because they went through years caring for people—perhaps a family member.
Dame Diana Johnson
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman.
Do the Government have plans and a timetable for introducing legislation to prevent compensation payments being reduced via taxation? Currently, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is merely asked to exercise its discretion. That must be looked at. I will also write to the Minister regarding a few other specific issues that have been raised with me, which I think will need further consideration by the Government.
My third ask is around payments. I would like the Minister to commit to paying fair compensation to all. So far, interim payments have been restricted to people infected and bereaved partners. While those payments are of course welcome, bereaved parents, children, and, as the hon. Member for Glasgow South West has just said, carers, have not received any financial support for their loss. Those people must be included in the compensation framework, as Sir Robert set out clearly in his findings.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair and to serve under your chairpersonship, Dame Angela.
As others have, I pay tribute to the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood. It is a privilege to be the vice-chair, but the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) has led the group superbly, as has the Father of the House, the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley). The Minister should be under no illusion: they have been relentless, and there are Members of this House who will join them in relentlessly campaigning on behalf of the victims of this scandal until justice is delivered. This tragedy continues to devastate lives, and we will continue to work cross-party to press the UK Government to pay fair and timely compensation to the bereaved families of the victims.
As others have said, it was campaigning, political pressure, legal pressure and media pressure that secured the infected blood inquiry in the first place. It was not handed to us; it had to be campaigned for relentlessly—I will continue to use that word—before the inquiry was given. The evidence from it is completely and utterly shocking. Andy Burnham, the former Health Secretary, called the scandal “a colossal failure”, saying in his evidence that there
“may even be a case for asking the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to consider charges of corporate manslaughter”,
and before then, in his last speech in Parliament—the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) referred to this—Andy Burnham called the scandal a
“criminal cover-up on an industrial scale.”—[Official Report, 25 April 2017; Vol. 624, c. 1072.]
I was there; it was a Backbench Business debate called by the APPG on haemophilia and contaminated blood.
I pay tribute to all those affected by the infected blood scandal, and all the campaigners who have done a tremendous amount over the years to bring the issue forward. Two constituents came to my surgery on Saturday: Cathy Young, who lost her husband Davie, and Cathy’s daughter, Nicola Stewart. Nicola has asked me to read the following words, which sum up the situation when she was growing up:
“So growing up with a dad with haemophilia who contracted through no fault of his own was a massive secret. My sister and I were not made aware of dad’s infection as dad and mum didn’t want anyone knowing. I now know this was down to the stigma of the infection. I just knew something wasn’t right with dad’s blood so his toothbrushes and razors were all kept away.
Then I hit my teens and things became a lot clearer as dad was going through treatments. After two rounds of attempts to clear it, it failed. My dad didn’t fail; he gave it his all. He was so ill through it and mentally struggled through his treatments. After the second time it failed, this is when I believe we lost dad. He was never the same man again. He went into total self- destruct. It was so painful, as we just couldn’t help him. He didn’t want the help. It isn’t until now that I understand why he hit the self-destruct button. It was horrendous. At a time when I was going through my exams, it was terribly hard to concentrate on my future at school when so much was going on at home.
Mum and dad’s relationship fell apart. Dad moved out and Mum tried her best to continue to pay the mortgage. I was working part-time at this point as I was still at school. I worked as much as I could and gave Mum every penny I earned to help pay the mortgage, as did my older sister. It was a lot for only being 17. We couldn’t keep up, so we lost our home.
Dad died when I was only 23. Far too early to be losing a parent. He has been gone 13 years now and I still cannot speak about him or what happened without crying—as you witnessed yourself on Saturday. I always explain it like I’m stuck in the grief process...I can’t get past the acceptance stage as he died through no fault of his own and no one has been held accountable for it. It is a cruel form of grieving when the answers are out there but no one has been interested in looking or even listening.
My dad has missed out on so much. Myself and my sister both walked down the aisle without my dad by our side. I have two children who never met their grandad but know of him as the grandad that lives in heaven. My dad didn’t see me graduate when I finally went back to education in my 30s. All the big things that your dad is supposed to be there for. He didn’t get to do it through no fault of his own.”
That is one family’s situation, and the daughter of a victim explaining what they went through. That is why we will continue to be relentless until justice is delivered. I pay tribute to Nicola for sharing those words with me. It takes a lot for a constituent to write to a Member of Parliament. I know we are not all scary—I certainly do not believe that I am scary—but people are sometimes scared to write such words.
We urge the Government to allow all those affected by contaminated blood to register with the support schemes, and to ensure that payments are available to bereaved partners, parents, children and carers. I hope the Minister will confirm today that the issue of carers will be looked at and respected, because so many people have cared for years for people going through this.
The UK Government must publish a response to Sir Robert’s study immediately, and must ensure that the arm’s length body can begin accepting compensation claims as soon as any inquiry reports. I hope the Minister will confirm today that the Government intend to respond to the study; it is important that they do. It is frustrating; a response to the study was promised, but we are still waiting for it.
As the former Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, the right hon. and learned Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis), said in a written statement,
“This analysis cannot be completed hurriedly but officials across government are focussing on this so that the government can be ready to respond quickly to the Inquiry’s recommendations”.
As far as I am concerned, we have waited far too long, and I think many hon. Members agree. The other recommendation was that an arm’s length body should be set up to administer the compensation scheme. Will the Minister give us an update on that? Again, that is important.
I am conscious that I must leave time for other Front- Bench spokespeople, and for the Minister to answer the questions. However, I want to make it clear to my constituents, and to all Members of this House, that I will join the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and the Father of the House in relentlessly pursuing this issue until justice is delivered.
Alex Burghart
The hon. Gentleman will have heard me pay tribute to everyone who is going through and has been through this awful experience. However, I hope he will appreciate that it is very important to ensure that what the Government might say now does not cut across what Sir Brian intends to say in his final report. Everyone can have confidence that that will be the final word and that the Government will then have the opportunity to respond quickly, to get everyone affected the support that they deserve.
Chris Stephens
Can I gently suggest to the Minister that he needs to be careful here? There is is already a significant lack of trust in the Government among those impacted. Sir Robert’s study made a number of recommendations, but we have not heard the Government’s response to those recommendations, including on the setting up of an arm’s length body to administer the compensation scheme. Can he confirm that the Government accept that recommendation?
Alex Burghart
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will know that that is one of the things that Sir Brian is looking at and that we will respond to Sir Brian’s findings. We take the matter enormously seriously and we understand the real desire for maximum speed; I know that people have waited for a very long time to get what the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire called limited justice. However, the truth is that I very much hope and believe that we are in sight of that endpoint now.
Chris Stephens
I am trying to be polite, Dame Angela, but significant recommendations from Sir Robert’s study were put to the Government. Not all of them are about compensation moneys; some of them are about the administration of any scheme, so that the Government are ready. Can we have some sort of response from the Government about those aspects of that report, please, because that will build confidence and do away with the lack of trust out there?
Alex Burghart
The hon. Gentleman will have heard me say that we are working across Government to make sure we are in a position to respond very quickly to what happens with Sir Brian’s report in the middle of next year. I understand that there are questions of trust for historic reasons, but I hope that the fact that the Government have been able to respond quickly, promptly and to our own timescales on the delivery of the interim payments will do something to show that the Administration are absolutely committed to doing the right thing.
Oral Answers to Questions
Chris Stephens Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (John Lamont)
Without pre-empting the details of the Chancellor’s statement tomorrow, I can say that the Government’s position is that, while tough decisions will be necessary, we remain committed to targeting support at the most vulnerable people in our communities across this land. As well as benefiting from a record block grant settlement to the Scottish Government, the people of Scotland benefit from higher levels of public spending, as is demonstrated through the Union dividend of about £2,000 a year per person.
Chris Stephens
The number of food bank parcels handed out by the Trussell Trust has doubled since 2015 as a direct consequence of austerity. Can the Minister assure the House that there will be no further return to austerity so that we can tackle the root causes of food poverty and the cost of living?
John Lamont
I hope that, as the Member of Parliament representing Govan, the hon. Member will join me in welcoming the £4.2 billion defence investment in Glasgow’s shipyards for the building of those five Type 26 frigates, which will support hundreds of jobs in his constituency.
The UK Government will always act to help the most vulnerable people in our society. The Government are helping to protect households from significant energy bill rises through the energy price guarantee, holding down inflation, and that is on top of the targeted support for the most vulnerable, including £1,200 in direct payments this year. As for other measures, I encourage the hon. Member to wait for the Chancellor’s statement tomorrow.