Climate Action and Extinction Rebellion

Clive Efford Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Claire Perry]

I do recognise that ambitions need to be raised not just here but around the world. That is why I hope we will have the chance to secure the crucial climate change talks next year, because we need to demonstrate that that is possible and not something to be frightened of. We need to work together with other countries to try to raise ambition collectively, and it will be wonderful to have cross-party support for the UK to be the host of those talks.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

I think I could sum up the Minister’s response today as, “The rest of the world is rubbish. We are better. We are doing things ahead of everybody else. I can’t understand why people came here and demonstrated.” By definition, it was a peaceful demonstration, but over 1,000 people managed to defy the authorities to the point where they were arrested. These people are not going to go away. So, Minister, what has changed as a result of their protests over the last few days?

[Claire Perry]

I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that I think that that is a really wrong reading of what I have said, and I am happy to send him Hansard—he will find that quite the opposite was said. What has changed is that everything has changed in a way, in that we now know how broad this protest is and the depth of people’s feelings. We are as frustrated as they are about some of the challenges, but we also have to recognise in this place that whatever we do is fair to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, to my constituents and to those who pay for the changes. I must also mean that the world can come with us, and I want to keep emphasising that point. We must not be complacent—nobody is complacent—but we have shown that we can deliver, that we will deliver and that we know we need to do more. However, we will have to do that together.

Marks & Spencer

Clive Efford Excerpts

Thursday 24th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Claire Perry]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. We have tolerated that difference for too long. It is right to have a fair allocation of VAT between both channels.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

It cannot be fair for our high street retailers to have to compete with online companies that offshore themselves for tax purposes and often use the most exploitative employment practices, such as minimum hours contracts. The Government have to act more urgently to deal with this problem. Does the Minister really think that if an employee loses their job at Marks & Spencer and goes to work for a company like Amazon, they will be given the same rate of pay?

[Claire Perry]

The hon. Gentleman flags up the reason that the Government commissioned the Taylor review on the future of good work: clearly, the workplace is changing. The expectation, and it has been pleasing to hear Marks & Spencer talk about this, is that it will do everything it can to redeploy its workforce, particularly into stores nearby that might be transitioning to food. I have been very struck on my forays into M&S by its incredible investment in its workforce—its commitment to increasing diversity and to providing good jobs over the long term—and we must all work to make sure that those jobs continue.

Office for Students

Clive Efford Excerpts

Tuesday 27th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gyimah]

As I have said, we will be responding to the comments of the commissioner for public appointments. The Department is working with the Cabinet Office, and we will do what the commissioner has recommended we do to make sure that this process works better in future.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

When the Government are considering this, will they think about why the same level of due diligence was not applied to Toby Young? Was it Government and ministerial interference—yes or no?

[Mr Gyimah]

Ultimately, this is a departmental issue. The Department has taken responsibility and will act on the recommendations of the commissioner for public appointments.

Student Loans Company

Clive Efford Excerpts

Monday 20th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Joseph Johnson]

Of course we want all students in repayment to be treated fairly by the SLC and we take the issue of overpayments particularly seriously. As I said in response to the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Gordon Marsden), we can expect to hear more on the theme of overpayments and the interaction between the SLC and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs in a couple of days’ time at the Budget.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

The Minister seems complacent about the extent of fraud. He can report to us only the amount of fraud that is known about but, by their very nature, the people who carry out fraud are devious. Did the “Panorama” programme suggest to him an area of fraudulent activity of which he was not aware before? What action did he take in response to what was exposed by that programme?

[Joseph Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman is of course right that the nature of fraud is such that we only really have a sighting shot at understanding its extent in any system. We have to look at comparable levels of ineligible payments across different types of provider. As I said, we do not see more fraud in the so-called alternative providers than we see in the HEFCE-funded public part of the higher education system.

Draft Trade Union Act 2016 (Political Funds) (Transition Period) Regulations 2017

Clive Efford Excerpts

Wednesday 25th January 2017 General Committees

[Christian Matheson]

I am going to have to make this simple. I pay a monthly membership subscription. I give money to the trade unions. That is what this is all about—membership money. The hon. Gentleman asks how much we get from them, but I do not get anything from them. I pay them money. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to ask that question. He is asking from a position of ignorance because he simply does not understand how trade unions work.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

The intervention shows what lies behind this anti-democratic measure. In the mind of the Tories, this is the way the Labour party is funded and the way our democracy operates, and they want a one-party state. Through the resources available to them, they want to dominate the political process in this country. They cannot abide the fact that working people fund a political party to put working-class people’s representatives in the biggest debating chambers in this country. That is what they cannot abide and that is what is behind this legislation.

[Christian Matheson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. My great-grandfather—my maternal grandmother’s father—worked on Liverpool docks. He was killed when my grandmother was five years old. Trade unions came into existence initially to improve local terms and conditions in individual workplaces, but it soon became obvious that improving local terms and conditions would not solve the national problems. Individual workers therefore grouped together to try to get national representation to change the law in favour of individual working people. My hon. Friend is right—there is a history to this. Sadly, there is also a history to what the Government are doing now. As I mentioned in my intervention—

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Efford]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Stringer.

The question behind this is the one that the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham asked us Labour Members about the political levy, “What is it worth?” The truth is, if we think of the contribution that trade unions have made to this country as social reformers, going back to the early days when workers were seeking not just decent conditions and decent pay but the right to a job, it is priceless. They realised then that they needed to pay a political levy to put political representatives in the most powerful debating chambers in the country so that their voices could be heard. The consequence was huge social reform on pay and conditions, health and education, and the creation of the Labour party. The political levy funded workers’ representation through the Labour party here in Parliament, and the Tories cannot bear it and have always chipped away at it.

Imagine a Labour Government having proposed regulation for businesses such that they had to consult their shareholders in the way trade unions are now being required to go through all this bureaucracy. I wonder whether the Conservative party writes every year to everyone who has a standing order explaining how they can stop it. I suspect not.

The explanatory notes to the measure say that its aim is a collaborative approach to resolving industrial disputes. That is typical of how the Government adopt the language of the workers, trade unions and the labour movement: their national living wage is nothing of the sort; they talk about being a party of the worker; they even suggested they favoured putting workers on boards, but I will not hold my breath for that. They adopt the language, but they do not will the means. This measure is a typical example of an attempt to weaken trade union representation of hard-working people who need protection.

I would love to see enthusiasm from Conservative Members for regulation to deal with zero hours contracts, but we do not see it. We do not see this sort of interference in regulation of businesses—far from it—but we do hear, “Deregulation, deregulation.” When it comes to democratic trade unions that are responsible and accountable to their members, and democratic representation voted on by their members, the Conservative party wants to regulate, regulate and bind them down under a plethora of bureaucracy. It is not good enough. The regulations weaken workers’ representation and are ill conceived. The Conservative party will rue the day when it undermined free and democratic trade unions; they are an essential part of a mature democracy, which the Conservatives are chipping away at constantly. The changes are rushed and unacceptable, and I am determined to vote against this statutory instrument.

Corporate Governance

Clive Efford Excerpts

1st reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 29th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

Business wants to enhance its reputation and it is much in its interest collectively to do so. This morning, the Institute of Directors, the CBI and the Investment Association, which represents those who invest the funds that the pension funds of ordinary working people put into British business, all welcomed not only the content, but the approach that is being taken. I am pleased and grateful for that support.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Last week, the Chancellor adopted Labour policy on fiscal investment to stimulate the economy. This week, the Secretary of State is adopting Labour policy on worker representation on boards—[Interruption.]

[Michael Gove]

Come over!

[Clive Efford]

No, you’re coming over here I’m afraid.

We need consistency from the Government. I have been advocating for years that football supporters should be represented on the boards of professional football clubs, but the Government have consistently said that that is not appropriate, so what has changed the Secretary of State’s mind?

[Greg Clark]

There are two Labour Back Benchers here. If one compares that with the number of my hon. Friends who are in the Chamber, there is scant evidence of Labour’s enthusiasm for these reforms. The hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) tried to imply that Labour is the party of working people, but the difference in interest in this statement between the parties shows the opposite. I hope that the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) welcomes the measures that the Prime Minister and I are proposing to give not only employees but customers a voice in the boardroom. The hon. Gentleman is a big football fan and a fan of greater involvement of enthusiasts in football, and I hope that he will contribute positively to the consultation and back our proposals.