Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Debate between David Anderson and Chuka Umunna

Tuesday 14th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Umunna]

That is a good point. The cuts that the Government are making in FE are already having a hugely negative impact, not least in the college that the Secretary of State attended.

To go back to undergraduate student financing, I note that the Government are switching from student grants to loans, but that simply dumps more debt on students. In the end, that is debt that, along with the loans taken out to pay tuition fees, will end up in the hands of the taxpayer. It is estimated, according to House of Commons Library figures, that that will add £280 billion to the national debt and we have heard no solutions from the Government to address that.

In the 2011 plan for growth, the Government told us to judge them not only against their achievements on skills but on whether they helped to deliver a substantial boost in business investment. Clearly, we must address that, because, as I said, our performance lags behind that of our competitors.

[Mr Anderson]

The Secretary of State said that the Government were working on a one-nation basis. Young people in this one nation are being deprived—they are being denied maintenance grants, will lose housing benefit and will not be allowed the proper living wage or minimum wage, yet they are supposed to be able to make their way in that one nation. Is that not nothing other than a two-nation strategy from the Conservative party?

[Mr Umunna]

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the assault on the aspirations of young people all the way from school to when they get a job. We remember that the Government stopped the Building Schools for the Future programme, which helped to give our young people a decent place to work. The Government took away the education maintenance allowance when people got to college and trebled their tuition fees when they got to university. Now, when they leave university the Government tell them that they should not earn as much as everybody else and that they will not extend the increase in the national living wage to those under 25.

Let me return to research and development. Although I welcome putting the annual investment allowance on a more long-term footing and the corporation tax changes, which also help, I would ask Ministers, who have suddenly perked up, this: where was the action on business rates for small businesses in this Budget? They create two thirds of private sector jobs, so where was the news for them?

Reducing the tax burden is all well and good, but in order to invest people need to be able to raise the finance to do so. According to the Bank of England, net lending to small firms has fallen by more than £1 billion in the past year and it continues to be an issue. Towards the end of his time in office, the Secretary of State’s predecessor joined us in championing a state-backed investment bank and put in place the British Business Bank, which we support. Now that he is no longer in post, and with the Government flogging off the Green Investment Bank, the British Business Bank has had no guarantees of future funding in the spending review and faces an uncertain future. I note that there was just one mention of it in the Red Book. I am happy to give way to the Business Secretary if he wants to answer this question: can he confirm today whether the Government plan to sell off the British Business Bank, too, and can he rule out doing that in this Parliament? The silence is deafening.

Let me turn now to infrastructure. We must end the dither and delay in making decisions on projects that not only increase our productivity but iron out regional imbalances and help people travel around in a more cost-effective way. In the Red Book, we are told that the Government believe that a modern infrastructure network is vital, so why, having commissioned the Davies report on aviation, do they appear to be locking themselves into a holding pattern right through until the autumn before coming into land and making a decision on this important matter? Our aviation industry employs hundreds of thousands of people, contributes more than £50 billion to GDP and pays the Exchequer more than £8 billion in tax every year. We have been clear that we will make a swift decision on this matter in the national interest. If the commission’s proposals to build a third runway at Heathrow can meet our tests, including consistency with our climate change obligations, we will take swift action to back them. I suspect that the Business Secretary agrees with me and all I say to him is that he needs to face down the opposition arising in Cabinet and do the right thing.

As for the regional growth policy, there has been a lot of chat about the northern powerhouse, so let me make a few observations. We cannot build a powerhouse if there is no power to connect our northern cities. The decision to shelve northern rail electrification, such as for the TransPennine Express route between Manchester and Leeds, was a kick in the teeth to the areas and regions of the north, and plans for a northern Oyster card do not make up for it. If I have one criticism of the Government’s overall approach to devolution, it is that they should be seeking to make every region a powerhouse rather than simply having a northern powerhouse.

Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between David Anderson and Chuka Umunna

Thursday 25th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a very good case. It is notable not only that the Business Secretary is not here, but that no one from his party is here. It will be interesting to see, in a few minutes when we go through the Lobby, whether the rest of the invisible men and women turn up to vote, or whether they abstain and renege again on workers’ rights.

[Mr Umunna]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In fairness to Conservative Government Members, at least they are up front and frank about their purpose in taking away people’s rights at work and do not, while voting for measures that do that, claim to be doing otherwise. We will watch carefully to see which Liberal Democrat Members join us in the Division Lobby.

I return to my previous point: there is no compelling vision for growth in the Bill. On all the evidence, the comments that the Business Secretary made in his letter to the Deputy Prime Minister and Prime Minister last year are just as valid now as they were then, which is why we will not support this ludicrous measure and have resisted it every step of the way.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Debate between David Anderson and Chuka Umunna

Tuesday 16th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Umunna]

I do agree. I think that describing it as the nationalisation of rehabilitation is entirely appropriate. I know that my hon. Friend, whose practice advised people who were claiming for personal injury, speaks with the benefit of huge experience.

The Government declined to undertake the review that Professor Löfstedt recommended on the restriction of the number of situations in which strict liability would apply, saying that it would be too complex. The other place rightly voiced serious concerns about that. Lord McKenzie of Luton said:

“On the basis of the flimsiest of evidence, the opportunities for those injured at work to obtain redress are being substantially impaired. We should be very clear about that. This is not ‘business as usual’. The beneficiaries, of course, will be the providers of employer's liability insurance. The losers will include taxpayers because reduced compensation will mean reduced benefit recovery.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 March 2013; Vol. 743, c. 1504.]

In less than a fortnight it will be workers memorial day, and many ceremonies, involving many Members of Parliament, will take place around the country to remember men and women who have been injured or killed in the workplace. The current framework is accepted and well established, and has helped to prevent workplace deaths and injuries. I ask the Government to reflect on the debate and the vote in the other place, and to preserve the status quo in the interests of the appropriate balance of rights and responsibilities between employee and employer in keeping the employee safe at work. We support the Lords amendment in that context.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

I apologise for arriving late. I was at a meeting of the Backbench Business Committee.

My hon. Friend has just made an important point. This is not about compensation as such; it is about ensuring that employers introduce and abide by regulations that prevent accidents from happening in the first place because they are frightened of having to pay the compensation. That financial disincentive will drive employers to do the right thing in circumstances in which they might not otherwise have done so. This is not about people at work receiving money; it is about people at work not getting hurt and not getting killed.

[Mr Umunna]

I entirely agree. This is one of the aspects of the debate on health and safety that I find particularly frustrating. While we must of course retain a balance, we must also be clear about the fact that protecting people at work and keeping them safe is not a matter of red tape. It is a matter of safety at work.

Lords amendment 40, to which the Government have tabled their own amendment, relates to estate agents. It represents a welcome U-turn by the Government, who have backed Labour’s proposals to give greater protection to tenants and landlords by forcing letting agents to join a scheme to deal with complaints. It is a victory for tenants and landlords who rely on agents to rent, or care for, their property in a market described as the wild west by the industry itself.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the organisations across the sector who have worked with us to secure this change in position from the Government. Tenants and landlords have for too long had little protection, and have been bewildered as to why it has taken so long for the Government to recognise the need for change. Until this eleventh-hour U-turn, the Government seemed out of touch and isolated on this issue. It is good that they have changed position, recognising the need for a proper complaints system for all consumers. However, we are disappointed that the Government have not gone further, having rejected other parts of Baroness Hayter’s amendment.

Blacklisting

Debate between David Anderson and Chuka Umunna

Wednesday 23rd January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Umunna]

I completely agree.

There has been concern that blacklisting may have taken place on Crossrail after it was revealed that a former senior human resources manager employed by a contractor on that project, Ron Barron, was a regular user and contributor to the association’s services in a previous job. An employment tribunal found that he introduced the use of the blacklist at his former employer, the construction firm, CB and I, and checked names with the association more than 900 times in 2007 alone. He was engaged as a consultant before the decision of the employment tribunal case against his previous employer was published, and the contractor says that it was not aware of the case.

In addition, the Select Committee has heard that there was information on association files regarding the monitoring of workers by the authorities because they were Irish nationals, and it has been suggested that they were barred from working on Ministry of Defence sites for that reason. I have tabled parliamentary questions to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the Ministry of Defence, the Department for Transport, and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on all those topics. The answers that I have received indicate that there has been no recent discussion, correspondence or investigation of blacklists being used by construction companies engaged on public sector projects. That may have changed since I received those answers. I do not believe any of the Ministers answering my questions were seeking to be unhelpful in providing those answers, but given what I have just set out and what we now know, there is sufficient evidence to justify the Government carrying out a full investigation into the extent of blacklisting that took place, and which may still be taking place, at the very least on public sector projects.

After carrying out an investigation, the Government should set out what practical steps may be needed to stop blacklisting, and to prevent blacklisting checks on public projects in future. No doubt, they will want to consider and reflect on whatever findings the Select Committee makes when it reports. We can have a discussion as to what form that investigation will take, but we need to learn the full truth of what went on. Beyond blacklist checks being made on workers on public sector projects, David Clancy, the Information Commissioner’s investigations manager, who carried out the raid in 2009 on the association, has made very, very serious allegations in relation to the police and security services. Giving evidence to the Select Committee, Mr Clancy, a former police officer, said he believed that some of the information held by the association would have come from the police or security services, based on the nature of the information held. For example, an in-depth analysis of an individual’s home circumstances and what his neighbours thought about him featured on one file.

Mr Kerr denied that the association had any involvement with the police or authorities. However, he confirmed that the Economic League, some of whose records formed the bank of information held by the association, had met and exchanged information with the police. At the very least, it is likely that some of the information given to the league by the police made its way on to the files held by the association. Having seen examples of some of the records myself, it is clear that they contained information based on the surveillance of individuals, including periods away from construction sites. It seems improbable that such information came exclusively from construction firms themselves. That further underlines the need for a full Government investigation into blacklisting, which should consider the role of the police and other such authorities.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a strong case. On his last point, even if the Government do not agree with anything else that has been said today, we have heard so much in the past few weeks about the role of the police over the past four decades—and the real worry is that faith in the police has been undermined by what took place two or three decades ago—that they must agree to investigate the cases raised today.

[Mr Umunna]

I absolutely agree. This is particularly serious and shocking, and if the police are to command the confidence of people in this country, the questions that hang over them in respect of their involvement with blacklisting must be properly investigated.

What about legal protections for construction workers and the system of redress for victims? Although it was and remains the case that it is unlawful to refuse employment on the grounds of trade union membership alone, at the time of the Information Commissioner’s raid on the Consultancy Association in 2009, there was no specific general prohibition on blacklisting. It was therefore left to the commissioner to prosecute Mr Kerr for failing to comply with the Data Protection Act 1998. As I said, he was fined just £5,000 as a result, which seems a shockingly small amount, given the devastation caused over the years. We have heard the evidence in the House this afternoon. Following the raid and the emergence of the blacklist, the Labour Government consulted on the issue of increasing the maximum monetary fine that could be imposed for serious breaches of data protection principles from £5,000 to £500,000. The increase came too late for the Kerr case.

Perhaps more shocking still is the fact that those firms that set up the association and became members—which supplied information to and accessed the blacklist—were neither charged with any offence like Mr Kerr nor ordered to pay compensation to the workers involved under that or any other law. To date, as I said, not one director of those companies has been brought to book for what happened. We also introduced the Employment Relations Act 1999 (Blacklists) Regulations 2010 a few months after the raid. They provide for victims of blacklists to seek redress from employment tribunals and civil courts only. They do not contain criminal sanctions, but they make it unlawful to compile, supply, sell or use a “prohibited list”'. To be prohibited, the list must contain details of current or former trade union members, or details of people who are taking part, or who have in the past taken part, in trade union activities. Non-trade union members on a list that includes trade union members qualify for protection too. The list must be compiled with a view to its being used by employers or employment agencies for the purpose of discriminating when recruiting or during employment.

As cases have progressed through the courts it has become apparent that the regulations need to be strengthened. I am coming on to the point that the hon. Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) made. First, the regulations are not retrospective in effect. While they act as a strong deterrent to those considering using blacklists, many of the victims of the blacklisting in the past, whom I have described—and some hon. Members have been victims—are unable to make use of them to secure compensation. Given that this is the case, what more can be done to ensure that those who have been wronged have some form of redress or compensation?

Secondly, it is unclear to what extent those who are not employed, in the strict sense of that word, but are self-employed, may bring claims under these regulations where they have been refused work. We know that false self-employment in the construction sector is rampant, so this is an important point that needs to be cleared up.

Thirdly, claims can be brought in the employment tribunal or the county court. Though the cap on compensation in the tribunal is £72,300 and there is no cap in the county court, people often prefer—I know this from my previous practice as an employment lawyer—to claim in the employment tribunal because it can be less laborious for claimants and the cost consequences of losing a case are less severe. However, claims brought in the tribunal must be brought within three months of the alleged unlawful act. Claims brought after that time can be allowed only at the discretion of the tribunal. Again, that needs to be looked at, because so many of the people affected are not even aware that these unlawful acts took place.

The upshot of all this is that often the only legal remedy for a significant number of victims of blacklisting is through a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of a breach of their convention rights—article 8 on privacy and article 11 on freedom of information. That, of course, can take a long time and a great deal of resource. There are a number of cases going through the courts at present, which I will not refer to now as I do not wish to prejudice those trials, but we must be realistic about asking individual workers, many of whom have lost their livelihoods and so do not have huge resources, to enforce their rights against those very well resourced companies.

For these reasons I ask the Secretary of State, who I am pleased is here today, to carry out a review of the law in this area to see how it might be tightened up and protections and sanctions strengthened, and for him to report back to the House on his findings. I have deliberately not set out detail in respect of legal changes that may be needed to address these technical issues. That is something on which we can work together to achieve consensus. However, just as we correctly argue for robust legislation to protect whistleblowers, we must ensure that a climate of fear is not allowed to continue around the issue of blacklisting.

No worker on any building site or at other workplaces throughout the land should hesitate before reporting an unsafe site or a dangerous working practice. That means that they must have confidence that the law is with them—is firmly on their side—and that there will be no question of that report being noted down somewhere in a file for troublemakers, allowing firms such as the construction companies to get away with what they have been doing.

Finally, I turn to the work of the Information Commissioner.