National Minimum Wage

Debate between David Anderson and Vince Cable

Wednesday 15th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

In general, that is the case. However, my experience, from talking regularly to trade unions and employers, is that most of our trade unions, certainly in the private sector, are extremely pragmatic and flexible on wages—indeed, that is one of the reasons why we have had relatively low unemployment. They deserve some credit for that.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is being very generous. At whatever level the fines are set, will he look at the possibility of reinvesting the money they raise directly into enforcement, so that the enforcement keeps on going to the point where, hopefully, we do not have to fine anybody, because nobody is breaching the rules?

[Vince Cable]

In line with the commitment to enforcement, I think we have produced more resources for that. My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who will be summating, may want to say a little more about that, but we recognise that the enforcement authorities need resources to do their job.

Blacklisting

Debate between David Anderson and Vince Cable

Wednesday 23rd January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

Of course blacklisting is wholly and utterly unacceptable, and of course the industry needs to understand that—I think that was the first remark I made. If it is about sending signals, we have already done so, and of course we will have a close look at what the Scottish Affairs Committee has said and whether it has found any new evidence. I do not think that this debate has brought forward anything new, but perhaps the Select Committee has. Obviously, if there is fundamental new information, logically we will look at that, but we have not yet seen it.

Then there is the question of the existing legislative framework, to which the hon. Member for Streatham drew attention. Let me just go over the legislative framework. The Data Protection Act 1998 was the basis on which the investigation took place, and the Information Commissioner used the maximum legal powers available at the time, which have since been increased, hence the ability to use civil penalties of £500,000. There is also the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which makes it unlawful to employ a person because they are a member—or, indeed, not a member—of a trade union or because they refuse to join or leave a trade union. It is equally unlawful for an agency to refuse employment services on those grounds. As we have heard, an individual can bring an employment tribunal complaint within three months of an offence taking place, or longer if it was not reasonably practical to bring the claim in time. That is what many workers have done in this case. Finally, there is the legislation that the previous Government introduced, the Employment Relations Act 1999 (Blacklists) Regulations 2010, under which it became unlawful to use, compile, sell or supply blacklists of trade union members or activities for discriminatory purposes such as employment vetting.

There was a decade of review of the 1999 Act and its implications. Several Members, including the hon. Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage), have asked why action was not taken more quickly. Let me go through the history of that decade. The Employment Relations Act 1999 introduced the power for the Secretary of State to make regulations to outlaw the creation, use, sale or supply of blacklists, but no regulations were introduced in 1999. Four years later, in 2003, the Government carried out a public review of the effect of the Act and concluded that there was no evidence of blacklisting, but they did publish draft blacklisting regulations and said that they would introduce them swiftly if the need arose. The ICO then investigated the Consulting Association, after which the Government introduced the regulations that had been published in draft.

Therefore, there was a very long process of consultation. Preparatory legislation was produced in case there was evidence that something had taken place, and indeed there was and the Government acted. My approach is exactly the same. If companies have found a way around the regulations and abuses are still taking place, we of course need to look at taking fresh steps, but I am waiting to hear that evidence.

[Mr David Anderson]

Will the Secretary of State address the point I raised with my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) about the involvement of the police and security services? The ICO’s investigations manager has stated in evidence:

“I believe some of the information would have come from those types of sources.”

Surely there is a public interest, and an interest in this House, in what public servants of the Crown were doing in feeding information to private companies.

[Vince Cable]

That is an allegation and, as I said a few moments ago, if there is serious substance to it and a good basis for investigation, it should first have gone to the Police Complaints Authority and to the body that looks at the security services. There is a process. It might be tedious to go through it, but that is what we have to do. If those avenues have been exhausted, perhaps we can take it to the next stage, but I have no evidence that they have even been tried.

The next question was whether we should now be investigating construction companies working on public contracts. That is the issue for today. As I have said many times, I am open to new evidence if it is available, because it is very clear that any company working on a public contract must comply with the law. Of course companies should not break data protection law, trade union law or the blacklist regulations.

Sunday Trading (London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games) Bill [Lords]

Debate between David Anderson and Vince Cable

Monday 30th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

We are giving the message very strongly to employers that they should communicate that to their work force. There is now adequate time for workers to opt out of Sunday working, should they wish to do so. I want to make that absolutely clear; that is the purpose of the reduction of the notice period from three months to two months.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

Is the Secretary of State aware of the survey carried out among 20,000 members of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers? It showed that 78% opposed extending opening hours during the Olympics, that 51% of staff already felt that they were being forced to work on Sundays when they did not want to, and that 73% said that the measures would add more pressure on them to work on Sundays in the future. That is what is happening in the real world. If the Secretary of State is serious about people being able to give notice of their wish to opt out, is it not incumbent on the Government to inform employees about that, rather than employers?

[Vince Cable]

I am not sure what is meant by saying that 73% of people believe this will affect future rights. These provisions are temporary and, as we have made clear, they do not extend beyond the period of the Olympic games. We have made it absolutely clear that existing rights are fully protected.

Postal Services Bill

Debate between David Anderson and Vince Cable

Wednesday 27th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that this is not an ideological question. I shall come to the share sale issue shortly, but I have no ideological stance on it. I see a role for public ownership in certain circumstances: I think I was ahead of most Opposition Members in pursuing public ownership of the banks during the crisis. There is a role for public ownership in certain circumstances, but this happens to be a case when it serves no useful purpose, and we are quite prepared to adopt a pragmatic approach to get the best provision for Royal Mail and the universal service, and the best value for the taxpayer. We have no ideological hang-ups, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman does not either.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that for more than a century a number of Labour Members have believed in the nationalisation of the banks?

--- Later in debate ---

[Vince Cable]

Yes, it is true, but the liabilities are much bigger. I shall explain in a moment how we will deal with the assets.

The pension deficit, which is the starting point, threatens the very existence of the company. It is draining cash from Royal Mail’s modernisation and preventing it from undertaking the reforms it needs to survive. That is why the Government have to take action today. As part of the sale, the Bill will allow the Government to take on responsibility for the pension deficit. We will not only address the deficit, but reduce the size of the Royal Mail pension plan to a more manageable level for the business. The liabilities of Royal Mail are more than 50 times annual profits. By comparison, the liabilities of the average FTSE 100 company are closer to one times profits—an enormous difference.

We intend to reduce the plan to about one tenth of its size today. We will do so by creating a new public sector pension scheme that will assume responsibility for paying out the past pension benefits of Royal Mail employees. In effect, all members of the Royal Mail pension plan will have their past service moved to a new Government scheme like that of the NHS or teachers. It is the same solution to Royal Mail’s pension problems as the previous Government proposed in their 2009 Bill.

I know that hon. Members will be concerned about the detail of the proposed pension arrangements, and we will provide a note to Parliament in order to explain the practical effects of those very complex changes, but I should like to reassure the House on two points in relation to pensions.

First, let me be clear that this solution is by far the best outcome for the employees of Royal Mail. The action that we are taking in the Bill will ensure that all the benefits that employees have earned will be safeguarded. The benefits that become the responsibility of the Government will be protected in the Bill, and all members of the Royal Mail pension plan will benefit from that support—Post Office and Royal Mail employees alike.

As a bottom line, the Bill places an obligation on the Government to ensure that our action leaves members in no worse a position than they were in before. This means that the amount of benefits that they receive will be at least as good as if the Government had not acted. There will also be a restriction on the Government’s ability to make any changes to the new public scheme in future that would adversely affect members. The Government intend to use that restriction to reflect as closely as possible the current protection that members of the pension plan are afforded under section 67 of the Pensions Act 1995.

Secondly, the measure is not a Government plan to massage the Government’s accounts, for the very simple reason that the Royal Mail pension plan has a deficit of £8 billion. That is the cost to the Government of implementing the solution on behalf of the company and its employees. Let me be clear: the Government are taking on liabilities that are much bigger than the assets. I have seen reports—perhaps this is what the hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) was referring to—that the Government will be selling off the Royal Mail pension plan’s £24 billion of assets. It is certainly true that the surplus assets above the level needed to leave the ongoing pension plan fully funded will be transferred to the Government. It is also true that these transferred assets will be sold because it makes no sense for Government to sit on a massive investment portfolio.

I, for one, do not wish to see central Government taking such a huge investment risk with taxpayers’ money. So yes, we will sell the portfolio of assets which transfer across to Government, and this is likely to involve over £20 billion of asset sales over time. But the important point—it is absolutely crucial to this argument—is that we will be making payments to members of the Royal Mail pension plan for at least the next 50 years.

[Mr Anderson]

Can the Secretary of State explain why the liabilities are so huge? Is part of the reason the fact that Royal Mail took a 13-year contributions holiday in the 1980s and 1990s?

[Vince Cable]

I understand that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is very familiar with this and has spent a lot of time talking to the pension trustees. There is a whole set of reasons behind this deficit, one of which is that employees are living longer; another is that the pension fund made some rather bad investment decisions. There are contributory factors. But we are where we are: there is a massive deficit and we have to deal with it; that is the centre of the problem.

Let me add that the Government’s support for the Royal Mail pension plan is subject to state aid approval by the European Commission. The House can rest assured that we will be going to Brussels to make this case in the strongest possible terms.

Let there be no doubt: this is a good deal for the employees of Royal Mail. In almost all important respects, it is exactly the same deal as that in my predecessor’s Bill—but coupled with the legal requirement for employee shares, it is a much better deal for employees.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Anderson and Vince Cable

Thursday 3rd June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

Yes, indeed; that is a very helpful point. I would merely stress that, by and large, very large companies do engage in substantial apprenticeship schemes for their own good reasons, and have the resources to do it. The particular expansion that we are engaged in is focused on small and medium-sized enterprises that lack the resources and the support to do that.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

8. What the terms of reference are of the review of employment law referred to in the coalition agreement.