Draft Important Public Services (Health) Regulations 2017
Draft Important Public Services (Border Security) Regulations 2017
Draft Important Public Services (Fire) Regulations 2017
Gill Furniss Excerpts(7 years, 10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. As the Minister outlined, the Trade Union Act 2016 introduced a requirement that at least 50% of eligible union members must vote in an industrial action ballot for it to be lawful. In addition, union members in sectors that the Government define as providing “important public services” will be subject to the requirement that any ballot for industrial action must achieve a 40% threshold of support.
Five sets of draft regulations determine the sectors covered by that additional 40% restriction. Today we considering the health sector, namely emergency, urgent and critical healthcare services; fire and firefighting services, including the co-ordination of emergency response; and border security and border functions for the control of entry and exit of people and goods into and from the UK.
I will not overly repeat the many issues that the Opposition have with the Trade Union Act as a whole and with these specific regulations, because I spoke to them at length yesterday when we considered their application to the education and transport sectors. However, it is important to reiterate that the regulations on voting thresholds for certain groups must be seen in the wider context of the Trade Union Act, which is a broad assault on working people and the right to strike.
The Government claim that, by imposing additional regulations on certain groups, industrial action is made more democratic and accountable. If they are so concerned about the democratic ability of unions, why did they delay and frustrate the implementation of electronic balloting for union members? I remember from yesterday’s debate that the Minister told us that e-balloting is under review. She initially said that the review would be published later this year, but then said that it would be published “soon”. I would like to know the answer today. I am pleased to hear that there may yet be progress on this initiative, but I think that it betrays the Government’s real motivations, which are to hamper the ability of working people to bargain collectively.
When strike action in the UK is already at an all-time low, and trade unions already take great care to maintain a level of essential service, loading an incredibly highly restrictive set of activities with further red tape is clearly ideologically motivated, and that is not good for governance.
Stella Creasy
It is unusual and telling that such a restriction is being brought in. I know that the “r” word referendum is not a popular one in this House with many people, but were we to impose such a threshold on referendums, or indeed on general elections, I am sure that there would be debates about that. No such arguments have been made, yet when it comes to people’s working rights, somehow the Government feel that such measures are entirely appropriate. What does my hon. Friend think that says about their approach to democracy and genuine engagement with people?
Gill Furniss
That is a very good point and we should all think about it.
The Government’s actual intention in introducing the regulations, which they expressed in their impact assessment of the Trade Union Act, is to reduce number of days lost to strikes by two thirds. However, Office for National Statistics figures show that, in 2015, fewer working days were lost to strikes—it is the second-lowest annual total since records began in 1891.
We in Labour believe that the right to strike is a fundamental human right that should be applied equally to all workers. The International Labour Organisation’s Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention 151 also provides that public servants must enjoy the same political and civil rights as other employees. The regulations clearly fly in the face of that convention.
Midwifery staff in hospitals would be affected by these regulations. Yesterday, I quoted Cathy Warwick, chief executive of the Royal College of Midwives, who wrote shortly after the first ever strike by the RCM since its foundation in 1881. She said that
“women needing urgent and emergency maternity care were getting it because midwives had sat down with management in advance of the day to ensure that a safe service would still be running, staffed by midwives, regardless of the strike.”
The new laws are unnecessary. They undermine the right to strike and are unlikely to be effective and the Government are dragging their feet on measures that would actually improve union democracy. I am very tested by the fact that we will still have to wait for the introduction of e-balloting. A lot of good points about people’s rights to withdraw their labour were made in yesterday’s debate, and about that being fundamental for working people. Above all, I want to reiterate the damage the measure could do to industrial relations in those areas of work. Rather than things becoming more democratic, with more people allowed to participate, there will be more union officials running about trying to get the numbers rather than talking and seeking compromise or whatever results we try to get in industrial relations negotiations.
I repeat that I will not support the measure. I should like an answer on e-balloting and want the Minister to take on board the fact that we already have evidence that striking is a last resort. Strikes happen when agreement cannot be reached. We already have evidence that the services we are discussing today will always ensure that the public are not unduly affected by their strike action.
Gill Furniss
Opposition Members are clear in what we believe. In conclusion, I go back to the example of the midwives. They have had one strike in more than 100 years; the next could be in the next century. It seems bizarre that we are setting legislation for the next century, not for here and now. The legislation seems draconian and confrontational to members of trade unions because there is no evidence of any particular problem. As has been stated over and again, we have lost the lowest number of days to strike since records began, so why are we doing this? It affronts me that the Prime Minister, only recently when in America or wherever, keeps going on about workers and says, “I’m all for workers’ rights.” Well, she is not, is she? No Conservative Members are, because if they were, this draconian legislation would not have been brought before the Committee.
Michael Gove
Speaking as someone who was deprived of employment because I chose to support a strike and to take industrial action, the attribution that none of us care about workers is entirely misplaced. More than that, is the hon. Lady really arguing that the industrial relations landscape is so perfect that we need no amendment and that working people who do not happen to be members of trade unions should receive no protection from strikes in vital public services?
Gill Furniss
I would argue that trade unions are already under very strong measures and have to prove everything that they do. As my hon. Friends have already said, trade unions are not just about strikes—Conservative Members must get used to that—because that is the last resort of any workforce. They lose wages and their families go without food. Many, many years ago, we saw such long strikes, where workers struggled. It is a big struggle for many people and—
Gill Furniss
No, I will not. What most people want is meaningful negotiations, where they can get issues resolved, and that is what is wanted by the management of most organisations, and required by the workforce. We do not have workforces crying to go out on strike; we have workers who want to be respected, who have good working conditions and are not at the mercy of zero-hour contracts or having to have three jobs at once just to support themselves. If we provide good working arrangements for people that would eradicate strikes, would it not? However, there must always be a fundamental right to withhold one’s labour. That is the right of everyone wherever they are from.
Chris Stephens
I agree with everything that the shadow Minister has said. Can she also confirm that trade unions play a vital welfare role in the workplace? For example, my trade union, Unison, has a welfare fund that has helped many low-paid workers across the UK.
Gill Furniss
My hon. Friend makes a good point. I was a health and safety representative for many years, and it is a vital role to work alongside management to point out any hazards and actually prevent accidents from happening in the workplace, which could be costly to any organisation in compensation.
Adam Afriyie
I am finding it really hard to grasp why the hon. Lady would not wish to stand up for those people who are members of trade unions who are forced to go out on strike in effect or lose their union membership merely because a very small percentage of people vote to do so.
Gill Furniss
The point you make is a point I know you believe in, but it is about an individual’s democratic right to strike. The legislation that you have introduced and the lack of a decent impact assessment reveal no evidence of any ongoing problem. What grieves me is e-balloting, because it seems so unfair that the review of that proposal is sometime in the future. Surely it would have been natural justice to have had that review and the legislation running side by side so that at least unions could have organised properly and quickly to take on board likely future legislation. That is another example of the unfairness and confrontational nature of the regulations before us.
The Chair
I remind Members to address other Members by their constituencies and not to refer to “you”, because that addresses me.
Draft Important Public Services (Education) Regulations 2017
Draft Important Public Services (Transport) Regulations 2017
Gill Furniss Excerpts(7 years, 10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans.
As the Minister has outlined, the Trade Union Act 2016 introduced a requirement that at least 50% of eligible union members must vote in an industrial action ballot for it to be lawful. In addition, union members in sectors that the Government define as providing important public services will be subject to the requirement that any ballot for industrial action must achieve a 40% threshold of support. Today we consider the transport and education sectors.
The Government have continually sought to argue that their proposals in the Trade Union Act will increase democracy and widen participation, but their neglect of electronic voting and insistence on outmoded processes reveal that as a smokescreen for an ideological attack on working people and trade unions. It is alarming that such an important and controversial component of the Trade Union Act is being determined by secondary legislation, resulting in a more limited opportunity for Parliament to scrutinise and debate provisions that are likely to undermine the right to strike for millions of UK citizens.
Trade unions are a force for good and for equality in our society, particularly in an increasingly insecure world of work. Labour remains fundamentally opposed to additional restrictions on industrial action that will limit the rights of millions of ordinary working people to strike.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady agree that if a trade union cannot get 50% of its members out to vote in a ballot, with 40% in support, it cannot really have a very good cause and therefore that the public should not be inconvenienced and workers should not be deprived of the right to work?
Gill Furniss
It is up to the management negotiating with trade unions to prevent strikes from happening. This legislation will be more acrimonious and will let the hon. Gentleman’s Government off the hook when it comes to strikes.
Chris Stephens
Given that only postal votes can be used, is it not difficult for trade unions running industrial action ballots by post that the number of post boxes in the UK has reduced sharply in the past five years?
Gill Furniss
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. We see with the closure of many post offices how the Government’s policy affects all walks of life.
The Government have also strived to give the appearance of a democratic process in the formulation of the Act and the associated regulations. The consultation on ballot thresholds in important public services received 205 responses from a variety of sources. As I will outline, those responses by no means gave a green light to the Government’s ideas, either on the definition of important public services, or on the restrictions on the ability to carry out proposed strike action.
These regulations must be seen within the wider context. They are part of a slew of regulations that limit trade unions. I thank the Government for listening to reason on the transition period before the rule change for political funds and await their new proposal. I welcome their changes to the initial proposals on the inclusion of ancillary workers in these categories, but make no mistake, the Act is an unnecessary, unjustified and disproportionate restriction on the right to strike for millions of working people.
Strike action in the UK is already at an all-time low. Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that 2015 had the second lowest annual total of days lost due to strike action since records began in 1891. What is more, the mechanisms already in place in the UK to deter or avoid strike action mean that most disputes are settled without strikes. There are more than four times as many strike ballots than there are actual stoppages. As Cathy Warwick, chief executive of the Royal College of Midwives, wrote shortly after the college’s first ever strike since its foundation in 1881,
“women needing urgent and emergency maternity care were getting it because midwives had sat down with management in advance of the day to ensure that a safe service would still be running, staffed by midwives, regardless of the strike.”
Unions are always careful in taking industrial action to offer essential cover and never to put at risk life and limb.
Asking members to take industrial action is always a matter of last resort. The priority for unions is to improve mechanisms for dispute resolution and is evidenced by the TUC initiative in the Southern rail dispute. The Government are pushing an image of trade unions as selfish organisations that threaten public safety, but that could not be further from the truth. Not only are new laws and regulations on strike action unnecessary, but they threaten to aggravate and unsettle the industrial relations we have in this country. The new laws set an unrealistic benchmark for industrial action, undermining the right to strike for many public sector workers. For example, in the sectors covered by the draft regulations, in a ballot where 50% of members take part, unions will need an 80% vote in favour before any strike action can go ahead. This is an unacceptably high threshold.
It is in the interests of workers, employees and the public for disputes to be resolved quickly and amicably. However, the new restrictions will undermine constructive employment relations in the UK, by forcing unions to put more effort into driving up ballot turnout and less into amicable settlements. The British Institute of Human Rights, Liberty and Amnesty International UK said of the then Trade Union Bill, now the Act:
“The government’s plans to significantly restrict trade union rights—set out in the Trade Union Bill—represent a major attack on civil liberties in the UK.”
The right to strike is protected by a number of international and European provisions, including the International Labour Organisation convention 87, the European social charter and the European convention on human rights.
The ILO defines essential services as those the disruption of which would endanger lives. In their response to the Department Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy consultation, Tonia Novitz, Alan Boggs and Ruth Dukes, professors of labour law at the universities of Bristol, Oxford and Glasgow respectively, said:
“Many of the government’s proposed ‘important’ services do not fall under this definition (for instance, education and transport).
We are concerned that the drafters of the Bill have introduced a term, ‘important public services’, which has no precedent under international or British law. This does not accord with the UK’s treaty obligations under the ILO Constitution or Conventions and is inconsistent with the established ILO jurisprudence regarding treatment of ‘essential services’.”
The Government have sought to defend the 40% threshold by citing decisions of the European Court of Human Rights that relate to cases from France and Spain, but those cases deal with the restrictions on the rights of police officers and military personnel. They do not justify restrictions on strike action by public sector transport workers or teachers.
On education, I note that the National Union of Teachers said in its consultation response:
“The ILO Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention 151 also provides that public servants must enjoy the same political and civil rights as other employees. The NUT would argue that any interference with this right must be fully justified and that the Government has failed, as yet, to provide any such justification.”
I have heard nothing from the Minister to convince me that the Government have provided any such justification for why teachers, as public servants, should have their political and civil rights in the form of their ability to organise strike action hampered in this way compared with other workers.
The Government seem to ignore the fact that strike action by teachers often carries significant sympathies from parents, who recognise that adequate conditions for teachers and a good teaching environment are in the interests of their children. It should not escape anyone’s notice that fee-paying schools are exempt from the regulations, as they are not public services. The regulations will ensure that public sector school workers have less capacity to strike than those working in schools that charge fees. The right to strike is a fundamental human right that should be applied equally to all workers.
In the consultation responses on education, 47% of respondents disagreed with the proposed list of bodies and workers. Although that contained a mixture of views, only 17% were in agreement. Some respondents felt that strike action in education services poses no significant risk to the public. Evidently, the Government disagree, but unless they can put forward a coherent case, we should go no further with the regulations.
As for transport services, out of 119 responses, 23% agreed and 38% disagreed with the proposed list, with respondents feeling that strike action in transport services was unlikely to pose risks to the public. The Prime Minister talks of the Tories as the party of the working class, yet in a country where trade unions are already heavily regulated, she wants further restrictions to rob workers of their right to take industrial action, leaving workers badly treated and essentially powerless. For all the reasons given, I cannot support the regulations and will press them to a Division.
Oral Answers to Questions
Gill Furniss Excerpts(7 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jesse Norman
I admire the subtle and unobtrusive way in which my hon. Friend smuggled his personal experience into that question. I assure him that we will continue to take a thoroughly co-operative approach with European colleagues.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
The recent “Steel 2020” report noted that steel is a key foundation industry for the UK that underpins our aerospace and automotive sectors, as well as many others. However, in the Government’s 130-page industrial strategy Green Paper, steel is mentioned just once. Can the Minister explain why he is neglecting this important industry?
Statutory Pubs Code and Pubs Code Adjudicator
Gill Furniss Excerpts(7 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Members for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) and for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) on securing the debate and for being real supporters and defenders of pubs. The pubs code came in after much wrangling in Parliament. It had been called for by many stakeholders in the industry. One of its most important objectives is to provide a level playing field for tenants, often in local pubs, so that they can compete fairly with pubcos in negotiations. This was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins). I congratulate the House on highlighting certain issues in the code, including the successful introduction of the market rent only option for tenants, which enables them simultaneously to seek the best deal for their pub while negotiating with one of the large pubcos.
The Government then set out to appoint a Pubs Code Adjudicator, and the decision was made to appoint Mr Paul Newby to the position, to oversee the running of the code, to provide information about the code and, when necessary, to enforce the code. In the midst of all this, there has been great tension between some groups in the pub industry, particularly around the role of the Pubs Code Adjudicator. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield highlighted some of the issues around conflicts of interest; he made some sensible points. He and others have made eloquent contributions on that issue. They include the hon. Members for Leeds North West and for Tewkesbury, the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) and my hon. Friends the Members for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) and West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey). I will not repeat the points that they have already so eloquently made.
The pubs code plays an essential part in moving towards a level playing field for pub tenants and the larger pubcos. In doing so, it provides an outline for protecting pub tenants against the very large pubco organisations. The market rent only option was successfully introduced to give pub tenants more flexibility in their operations, and it was welcomed by many stakeholders. However, as we have heard, there are serious questions about the effectiveness and implementation of the code, and about the role and conduct of the Pubs Code Adjudicator and the perceived conflicts of interest relating to him. The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Richard Arkless) used his legal background to explain clearly how that perceived conflict of interest could be a serious barrier, and said that the issue needed to be looked into.
Since the introduction of the code last year, 77 referrals have been put forward to the Pubs Code Adjudicator. Most of them have related to market rent issues, a crucial matter for many of the small operators in the sector. There is clearly a demand for arbitration via the code, and it is a matter of great concern to me and many others that not one of those cases has yet reached resolution. I recognise that the Pubs Code Adjudicator has been in post for only six months, but he should have made his mark on the industry in that time in order to try to gain the confidence of the market. It is essential that the process of referrals and subsequent decisions by any adjudicator should be seen to be fair and free of any conflict of interest. This is an issue that the Government need to address urgently, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool said.
The pub industry employs 850,000 people in the UK, mainly in the local pubs that form the hub of many communities. At this time of Government cuts to vital local services, we have seen community pubs stepping in to provide libraries and cafés to serve their communities. I commend the work being done by the not-for-profit organisation, Pub is the Hub, in this regard. It is crucial that the pubs code should work for everyone as the effective measure it set out to be and was expected to be.
This brings me to the points raised by hon. Members on the role of the Pubs Code Adjudicator. There have certainly been raised tensions in the debate over the appointment of Mr Newby as the PCA. As I have said, I welcome the points that hon. Members have made about the perceived conflict of interest issues surrounding Mr Newby’s former employer. I urge the Minister to look into the recommendations of the Select Committee, particularly those relating to the perceived conflict of interest and to Mr Newby’s shareholdings and the loan issues that have been raised today.
In my view, we should not hide away from serious concerns such as these. The Government must ensure that the role of the Pubs Code Adjudicator is truly impartial and independent, so that the pub tenants whom the pubs code is there to serve can be satisfied with the work being done. That is clearly not the case at the moment, as the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway pointed out. Only in this way will we ensure a fair and proper process and a focus on the real and important issues. I urge the Government to examine the role of the Pubs Code Adjudicator and to explore options that will increase transparency and fairness.
Over the past couple of weeks, I have had many meetings with representatives of pub tenant groups and of the larger pubcos. In all those meetings, there were recurring themes that appeared to unite all the stakeholders, one of which was business rates. We must focus on the issues that act as barriers towards a thriving pub industry. The pub is a long-established part of British life, and a visit to a pub is now No. 3 on the list of things to do for tourists coming to the UK. We must do everything we can to ensure that that continues.
The pubs code is there to help local pub tenants to get a fair deal when negotiating with the large pubcos, but we have already heard today that some in the industry are unconvinced that it is working for them. I strongly urge the Government to do what they can to ensure that the pubs code is properly implemented for everyone, but in particular for the tied tenants who have long campaigned for fair negotiations. Also, it is only fair to Mr Paul Newby that the Minister should review the way in which he was appointed and the matters that have arisen from this debate and from the Select Committee, so that we can move on and make progress towards ensuring that the pubs code is properly implemented and that everyone has confidence that it can work in the way that it was meant to do.
Draft Trade Union Act 2016 (Political Funds) (Transition Period) Regulations 2017
Gill Furniss Excerpts(7 years, 10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I, too, declare that I am a proud member of the GMB. As the Minister has said, the regulations set a transition period of 12 months, beginning on 1 March 2017. The Trade Union Act regulations affecting new members of trade unions that have political funds will then come into effect on 1 March 2018.
The Trade Union Act is a partisan, poorly drafted and divisive piece of legislation that puts to bed any notion that the Government are acting for working people across the UK. It is a threat to political activity and campaigning by trade unions. It is a direct and deliberate threat to the Labour party’s funding from affiliated trade unions, while Tory funding sources are left untouched, and breaks the well-established consensus on the issue.
The manner in which the regulations have been consulted on and drafted is entirely consistent with the Government’s approach to date. They initially proposed a transition period of 12 weeks—[Interruption.]
Gill Furniss
Thank you, Mr Stringer. When the Bill went to the other place, the Government had initially proposed a transition period of 12 weeks, but the House of Lords Select Committee on Trade Union Political Funds and Party Political Funding recommended a minimum of 12 months.
On 16 March, the first day of the Bill’s Report stage in the other place, the Government suffered several defeats, including on the transition period. By a majority of 148, the other House voted for an amendment restricting the new political fund opt-in to new members; extending the transition period from 12 weeks to 12 months; removing the need to renew opt-ins every five years; and allowing unions to use methods other than postal for the purposes of opting in.
During the Bill’s passage through the other House, clause 11 was added and ensured that, before beginning the transition period, the Secretary of State must consult the certification officer and all trade unions that have a political fund. The Government claim that they have satisfied that clause, with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy conducting an informal consultation with trade unions and the certification officer. It seems, however, that that lightweight bit of research was more focused on coming up with a transition cost than actually listening to trade union concerns; the Government heard concerns and objections, but then did exactly what they wanted to do in the first place.
It seems to me that a consultation process implies actually taking into account the concerns and objections that stakeholders might have. The proposed 12-month transition period is completely inadequate and fails to take into account the complexity involved in making the required changes. Many of my hon. Friends have made that point very well today, and I will outline some of the reasons why that period is insufficient. For example, I note as others have that retailers were granted two years to prepare for new charges on plastic bags, which was far less complicated than what is envisaged under the regulations.
Unions are democratic organisations, with established procedures and hierarchies designed to support their democratic operation. To change the rules is a lengthy process; branches must be consulted before a final change can be approved at a conference.
It has been suggested that rule changes could be agreed through a majority vote at a meeting of a union’s executive committee, under section 92 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. However, the proposed process is not consistent with most union rules or practices. The Government have previously argued that the Trade Union Act was designed to increase transparency and to encourage participation in union democracy. Under the terms of this statutory instrument, unions will be forced to act in a way that could damage or undermine their democratic structures in order to comply with the Act. That position is not exactly consistent.
If the Government were actually concerned about increasing democratic engagement by union members, they would not have delayed the implementation of electronic balloting—a proposal on which they were defeated in the other place and which was included in the Act through a cross-party amendment.
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend is making a strong point. During the evidence sessions on the Trade Union Bill we heard many times from Conservative Members about alleged undemocratic structures operating in unions and decisions being taken by small groups of people. Does she agree that it is absurd that in reality the Government are asking us to override those long-established democratic structures of unions?
Gill Furniss
My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
Several unions, including USDAW, have set out their response to the BEIS consultation, conducted in August 2016, and to the certification officer’s consultation on the new models, conducted on 22 November 2016. The latest they needed to receive the final model rules from the certification officer in time to make a rule change in a 2017 conference was by 6 January 2017. Those rules were not received from the certification officer until Monday 16 January, and therefore it is not possible for the unions to make the rule changes until April or May 2018.
The Government’s summary of unions’ responses to the August consultation even states:
“A number of Unions said they have conferences scheduled for April/May 2018.”
That is where rule changes can be made, which is a different procedure, so why are the Government rushing to implement the legislation on 1 March 2018, just weeks before unions are due to hold their conferences to change their rules to comply?
Chris Stephens
Is there not another practical application? Under the proposed changes to the check-off arrangements, trade unions will have to discuss with employers an increase in subscriptions to comply with the terms of legislation, but the required statutory instrument has still not come before the House.
Gill Furniss
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. As a result of that legislation, unions will need to renegotiate check-off arrangements with hundreds, and in some cases thousands, of employers across the public and private sector. According to the recently issued model rules, securing approval from the certification officer alone could take up to five weeks.
Ms Eagle
Does my hon. Friend agree that trying to change the rules for trade unions by a non-usual route, as suggested by the Minister—allowing rule changes by a secondary route to that which is normally allowed—to comply with these wholly irresponsible regulations creates the potential for real burdens to be placed on how unions operate internally? Does she also agree that unions’ rulebooks are an important part of how they operate their internal democracy and ensure their stability as they move forward as organisations? Is there any other civic society organisation that the Government have decided to treat in that way?
Gill Furniss
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The rulebook is there for the benefit of everybody—employers and members—and it is a well-trodden path that has always succeeded. I ask the Minister whether there is another example of anyone in civic society who has been treated in this way. That would be an interesting concept.
Christian Matheson
I can answer my hon. Friend’s question. There are other elements of civil society that the Government are treating in this way: charities and campaign groups. The Government have cut their funding and restricted their campaigning activities so that they do not attack the Government.
Gill Furniss
I think there may be some merit in that point.
I will make some progress now. Let us be clear: the Trade Union Act is the most significant, sustained and partisan attack on ordinary workers in a generation, and the fact that the Government claim that it will increase fairness for trade unions and workers, while forcing them to act against their own democratic processes and principles by rushing through these changes, once again reveals the hypocrisy.
Will the Minister concede that the Government have been hasty in their approach to implementing the Act at the potential expense of trade unions and workers? Will they extend the transition period—which, for the reasons we have already outlined, is insufficient—by at least six months, so that legislation can be followed and trade union rules, processes and democratic principles properly respected?
For all the reasons I have laid out, I am afraid I cannot support the draft regulations and we wish to divide the Committee on the matter.
Margot James
I am not going to proceed down that path at this point. As required by the Act, we have consulted and sought views on the length of the transition period.
Margot James
Sorry, I am not going to give way again; I have been very generous. [Interruption.] As it is the shadow Minister, I will give way, but for the last time.
Gill Furniss
Will the Minister take on board what the right hon. Member for West Dorset said and give us some flexibility in implementing the transition? She seems to have indicated that she may look at that, but it would be good to put on the record whether that will occur.
Margot James
I can only repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Glasgow South West. I am not going to repeat myself again. The regulations implement the Act’s provisions by providing for a 12-month transition period. We have taken a proportionate approach on the political funds opt-in transition.
Oral Answers to Questions
Gill Furniss Excerpts(8 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Clark
I will indeed congratulate Severfield Steel, which is a very successful company, not only on the Ordsall Chord but on winning a global award in recent weeks. It was also responsible for construction of the Olympic stadium, the Shard, and Birmingham New Street station. Many of the buildings that we admire and have in our minds are constructed with British steel by British companies.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
While we have recently had some really good news for the steel industry, giving steel workers and their families the stability they need for now, the fact that steel was not mentioned in the autumn statement gives cause for concern. Furthermore, the UK Government’s leading of a group of countries that are blocking the EU reform of anti-dumping trade defence instruments is another serious issue for the industry. Will the Secretary of State commit to including the steel industry in the future industrial strategy, and detail the steps that the Government will take to support this vital foundation industry?
Greg Clark
Of course steel is incredibly important, and it is important that it should have a bright future—we all want to see that. One thing I have been doing with the Minister for Climate Change and Industry, working closely with the steel industry on both the employer and trade union side, is to fund and bring together a strategic review, and the whole industry is coming together to work on it. That is expressly designed to inform our industrial strategy, so that we can look forward with confidence to a very successful steel industry.
Backbench Business
Gill Furniss Excerpts(8 years, 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
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Wilson. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) on securing this debate and all my hon. Friends who have spoken. I pay tribute to the many postal workers and the CWU who have brought many of the issues to our attention. As constituency MPs, we are all keen to ensure that the Post Office has a long-term future for the benefit of the communities we represent, and we want to know what the Government’s plans are for making the vision of a 21st century Post Office a reality.
It has practically become a cliché to say that post offices are at the heart of our communities, but it is a cliché because it is true. From city high streets and suburbs to villages up and down the country, the local post office is a landmark and an essential part of life. It is not just a place to buy stamps and send parcels; it provides a host of services. My hon. Friends the Members for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) and for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones) pointed out that, in rural areas, they can often be the only place where some services are available. It is no exaggeration to say that they are a lifeline.
I recognise that we are living in an ever-changing, increasingly digital world in which access to services online is undermining some of the Post Office’s traditional role. That is simply a fact of the times we live in. What concerns me is that the Government have apparently accepted the challenge as insurmountable and have embarked on a programme of managed decline, instead of looking at how we can make one of our proud national institutions fit for the 21st century.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) made a good point when she said that last year 50 Crown post offices—the larger branches, usually in prominent high street locations—were franchised and moved into the back of many WHSmith shops. There are plans to do the same with 59 more this year. That may seem like a pragmatic way of keeping post offices going through trying times, but the impact of that franchising on the quality of service provided and on the terms of employment offered makes me question the underlying rationale.
When Consumer Focus, as it then was, looked at the quality of service being provided by franchised branches in WHSmith a few years ago, it found that they consistently ranked below normal post office branches for queue times, the time taken for transactions at the counter, the number of counter positions staffed, customer services and advice on products. There were also big issues with disabled access, as many have said.
The Post Office’s own monitoring suggests there is no drop in the quality of services following franchising. However, as we have never seen its monitoring figures, I take that with a pinch of salt. The consumer organisation Which? is doing its own research on the matter, which it is hoping to publish in the next few weeks and which will no doubt make interesting reading for all of us.
When looking at what happens to jobs when branches are franchised, it is not hard to see why the quality of service drops.
Neil Coyle
Is there a question here not just about poorer service, but about taxpayer-funded poorer service? The lower pay usually offered by companies such as WHSmith is subsidised by taxpayers in tax credits and housing benefit. There have also been upfront subsidies, such as the £500,000 spent in Paisley and more than £100,000 being spent on Walworth Road. Other Members have referred to taxpayers’ money being used to tart up formerly dingy post offices before they were franchised.
Gill Furniss
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. This is not what taxpayers were expecting. We were looking at something for the future—a lot of taxpayers’ money to make this the gateway to a fully functioning Post Office service. We have heard representations in the Chamber today that that has not been the case.
Jobs with good terms and conditions are being replaced all too often with part-time, minimum wage roles. There is little to attract long-serving, experienced staff to transfer to a franchised branch. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton North made the good point that last year just 10 staff out of 400 in Crown offices being franchised chose TUPE; the rest took compromise agreements to leave. Those agreements cost the Post Office £13 million. So much for the Government working for everyone. What a waste of public money. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) also mentioned that experienced staff are leaving in droves. That means that the quality that the Post Office stands for is undermined and a community asset is hollowed out—and make no mistake: these are community assets.
Franchising is done in the face of public opposition. Consultations on individual branches are exercises in public relations rather than proper public engagement. The branches targeted for franchising tend to be in more urban areas, disproportionately affecting the services available to already disadvantaged groups and harming the general health of our high streets.
The Post Office is clearly facing a crisis. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) has an excellent article in the Daily Mirror laying all that out today. Since the Post Office was split from Royal Mail, it has struggled to keep its head above water. Traditional revenue streams are shrinking; plans to make it a “Front Office” for Government have disappeared into the ether; and an expansion of financial services has slipped off the agenda. One thousand jobs were lost last year, and another 2,000 are under threat this year.
The Government must take action now to halt the decline, and work with all those concerned to come up with a plan for a better future than the one currently on offer. Although I welcome the consultation document that has been published, I am concerned that it does not go far enough, and I urge the Minister to be bold in formulating a strategy for the future.
Will the Minister revisit the plans to make post offices the front office for Government that has been promised for so long? Post office revenues from Government services have fallen by 40% since 2010. Will she commit to expanding the financial services on offer? After all, the Post Office current account is not matched by either the children’s or business accounts. Surely that is an obvious starting point for expanding services. With the retreat of banks from the high street, the demand for a postal bank has never been greater. Will she explore how our post offices really can be the front office of Government and provide all the services that people require?
I ask the Minister with all sincerity whether she will call for a moratorium on any further franchising of Post Office branches until there has been proper engagement on what the future of the service will look like. This proud institution, its employees and the communities that it serves deserve better than a slow slide into oblivion.
National Minimum Wage (Workplace Internships) Bill
Gill Furniss Excerpts(8 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) on bringing the Bill before the House. He has sought to introduce legislation on the issue previously, and I commend him for his tenacity. I am glad that a Government Member has taken to heart the Prime Minister’s promise to work for the many, not the few, and is using his initiative to make that pledge a reality.
For our young people leaving university and looking to enter the world of work, a degree is not the passport to job security that it was for their parents and grandparents’ generation. Competition in the graduate job market is fierce. One estimate is that there are 73 applicants for every graduate role. In that environment, employers will plump for the candidate with the most experience, but there lies the trap that too many young jobseekers fall into: they cannot get a job without experience, but they cannot get experience without a job. Internships are a great way to gain that experience and enhance a CV. When they are done well, they are a great boon to employers and interns alike.
The RISE scheme in Sheffield, for instance, is a collaboration between our two universities, the city region and the private sector. It has so far placed 200 graduates with 120 small and medium-sized enterprises that would not normally recruit interns, with minimum pay requirements built in. There is also the recruiter Instant Impact, which specialises in finding paid internships with start-ups. Or why not look closer to home? I do not want to be accused of buttering anyone up, but the Speaker’s parliamentary placement scheme does fantastic work in making this place accessible to people who would not otherwise have had the chance to work here, and paying them properly into the bargain. When I was elected back in May, I inherited a young man who was coming to the end of his placement on the scheme. He waxed lyrical about the boost it had given both his CV and his broader outlook, and he was an absolute life-saver for me when it came to getting myself set up and finding my feet here.
However, the Bill deals with the other side of the coin: unpaid internships, through which employers take advantage of young people who are desperate to break into highly competitive sectors, or simply trying to improve their prospects. The system is rigged in favour of those who can afford it—or perhaps it would be better to say whose parents can afford it. Young people from my constituency, and indeed most young people across the country, cannot afford to work for nothing. Careers in law, medicine, the media, fashion, finance and the arts are all beyond the reach of some of our brightest and our best. Those careers are monopolised by the children of the wealthy, who can support them through months of unpaid work, while those from more modest backgrounds are shut out. It is not just social mobility that suffers; by denying opportunities to so many young people, businesses are missing out on hiring real talent, simply because of that talent’s background.
There is, of course, also the simple moral imperative to ensure that someone doing a fair day’s work receives a fair day’s wage.
Mark Pawsey
What would the hon. Lady say to Opposition Members who say that if the Bill went through, there would be fewer internships?
Gill Furniss
I would have to have a quiet word with them about that.
I appreciate that the hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell has linked this Bill to the minimum wage, rather than the so-called living wage. We have to strike a balance between providing fair pay for younger people and making internships too expensive for employers to run. By ending the exploitation of young people through internships, this Bill goes a long way towards levelling the playing field.
I have been brief because I realise that the hon. Gentleman is passionate about the subject of his Bill and I do not want to contribute to its being spoken out.
Steel Industry
Gill Furniss Excerpts(8 years, 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
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Betts. I begin by congratulating my hon. Friends the Members for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) and for Redcar (Anna Turley) on securing this vital debate. I also congratulate all my hon. Friends who have spoken. I welcome the new Minister to his place. The irony is not lost on me: I am a daughter of a steelworker addressing a Minister who has a family link with steelmaking. I think I heard that at the beginning of the debate.
The number of Members who have spoken today speaks volumes about the importance of the issue. It is a pleasure to be among this dedicated group who have been fighting for the future of the steel industry with such determination for many months and years. We must pay tribute to the all-party group. I am sure we are all awaiting the forthcoming report. I also thank the trade unions and their officials for their hard work representing their members and supporting them and the wider communities that rely on steel in incredibly uncertain times. Both they and the manufacturers have approached the situation constructively. I thank the Daily Mirror for its ongoing “Save Our Steel” campaign, which has done so much to keep the issue on the political agenda and to raise wider awareness of how crucial the steel industry is to the economy.
The last time Parliament debated the crisis in the steel industry was at the beginning of July, shortly after the EU referendum and David Cameron’s announcement that he would be standing down as Prime Minister. Members were grappling with the consequences of those things for the future of the steel industry. There were a lot of questions, but few solid answers.
Four months on, very little has changed. We have seen the chairman of Tata replaced by his predecessor, but the future of Tata steelworks across the country is no clearer than it was previously. Thanks to the drop in the pound’s value, a slight rise in steel prices globally and, not least, the dedication of our steelworks, there has been a slight improvement over the past few months. However, we must not let an uptick distract us from the fact that the industry is still in a deep existential crisis—it is hanging by a thread.
The industry has had plenty of warm words from both the old Prime Minister and the new, but so far there has been little in the way of practical policy. Although the new Prime Minister has spoken about strategically important industries needing Government support, steel manufacturers are crying out for the rhetoric to be matched by action. We have seen that Ministers are prepared to support industries in need—just look at their recent deal with Nissan. As much as we would all love to know what the deal entails, I appreciate that this may not be the debate in which to discuss it. Nevertheless, I am grateful to the Government for ensuring the continuing presence of Nissan in the UK, not least because the automotive sector is of critical importance to steel. It does, though, prompt the question: if Nissan and the automotive industry can be supported, why not steel?
With all the uncertainty hanging over the steel sector, workforce morale is understandably low. Workers are casting about for alternative careers, and once they have taken their expertise with them, they cannot be easily replaced. They need reassurance that their jobs and their industry have a viable future, and they need that reassurance now. Uncertainty also means a steady shrinking of customer confidence, and there is no surer way to undermine the steel industry than to allow its customers to think that it has no future.
Both the workforce and the manufacturers are united in calling for the Government to take a number of concrete steps. Members have highlighted those key asks this afternoon, and I want to reiterate them to the Minister and ask how his Department will respond to each of them.
The first issue is energy prices. The price of electricity in the UK for extra large users is the highest in the EU, to such an extent that it undermines our competitiveness. The difference means that UK steel manufacturers pay nearly £17 more per megawatt-hour than Germany—the next most expensive—costing the UK steel industry nearly £1 million every week. Industry has put forward a number of proposals to balance that disparity, such as a review of National Grid’s transmission charging regime and a review of the impact of the carbon price floor. However, the response from the new Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has so far been silence. Now that business, industry and energy are all under one departmental roof, I shall be interested to hear what discussions the Minister has had with his colleagues on the matter.
Gill Furniss
We have to look throughout Europe and find examples of best practice that we can adopt in this area of work, which is clearly important.
Secondly, there is the issue of business rates. By including plant and machinery in business rate calculations, we are not only at variance with but less competitive than France and Germany, where business rates are as much as 10 times less than ours. We are also creating a disincentive for manufacturers to increase productivity and are effectively taxing investment. Perhaps the best example is in Port Talbot, where Tata invested £185 million in a new blast furnace only to find £400,000 added to their business rates. Our current one-size-fits-all regime for business rates is a hangover from the days when manufacturing dominated our economy. That has not been the case for decades, and we need a tax regime that reflects that change.
Tom Pursglove
Does the hon. Lady agree that a balance has to be struck on taxes? Taking her back to the energy point, one of my concerns is that in the past, the right balance has perhaps not been struck between green taxes and levies and making sure that the needs of our energy-intensive industries are properly reflected in policy. What does she make of that? Is she concerned about the green taxes and levies?
Gill Furniss
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, but a lot of work needs to be done in the green energy industries to start with, because we really are missing a bit of a home goal by suddenly putting them on the sidelines. I am sure we will pursue that.
Tom Blenkinsop
On green taxes, I remind the House that the Opposition voted against the unilateral introduction of the carbon price floor by the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer. That was brought in without any conversation with the industry and without the EU’s prior knowledge. When the then Government attempted to reverse that, they were prevented from doing so by European legislation. My hon. Friend will also be aware that as well as opposing the CPF, we also put forward business cases for the industry.
Gill Furniss
I thank my hon. Friend for that point. Thirdly, I want to give credit where credit is due and thank the Government for the guidance published in October last year, which has put some emphasis on supporting British steel in major procurement projects. However, despite the good intentions behind that move, we are still seeing major contracts going to foreign steel manufacturers, most famously the new Trident submarines, which are being built with French steel. Had a British firm been engaged to supply the steel, more than 1,000 jobs would have been supported, but alas, that is not the case. Will the Minister commit to ending the exemption from the guidance of tenders funded through contracts for difference? Will he look at strengthening the guidance better to reflect the social and economic consequences of current procurement decisions? Will he follow the examples set by the Scottish and Welsh Governments and publish future pipelines of projects so that British steel manufacturers can prepare themselves to fulfil future demand?
Fourthly, there is the issue of trade defence mechanisms and Chinese dumping. Whatever else Brexit may mean, it is absolutely vital for the industry that we avoid any sort of punitive restrictions on access to the European market. Last year, more than two thirds of our steel exports went to EU countries and our own steel industry is closely bound up with the Dutch plant at IJmuiden. Our trade defence mechanisms depend so much on what the final Brexit deal looks like, but whether or not we find ourselves bound by the rules of the single market, it is critical that the UK stands up for fair trade globally. While we still have a voice in the European Commission, we should be throwing our weight behind the scrapping of the lesser duty rule, which is hamstringing all efforts to counteract Chinese dumping, and opposing China’s application for market economy status, which will kill those efforts stone dead. Free trade does not mean fair trade and until the Government wake up to that reality, the steel industry will never have the level playing field it is asking for.
On the industrial strategy, the difficulties that the steel industry has with energy prices, business rates, procurement problems and unfair global trading practices are all issues that the Government need to address immediately. There are swords dangling over the industry’s head, but if British steel is going to not just survive but thrive, it needs a proper long-term industrial strategy to put it on the right track for the future. I am glad that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has commissioned research into the future capacity and capability of the steel industry. I and no doubt all of us here are looking forward to its findings next year.
Every job in steel supports three in the supply chain and the industry really is the cutting edge of UK manufacturing. Most of the types of steel being produced were not even in existence 15 years ago. Steel will play a central role in our transition to a low carbon economy if we manage it correctly and it can continue to lead the world in terms of quality and innovation. Will the Minister reassure us that BEIS will put steel at the heart of its industrial strategy?
Steel is not a dying industry. It is not a relic of a bygone era. It may be a proud part of our industrial past, but it also has the potential to be a dynamic part of our economic future. Without it, we will not only have lost an industry—make no mistake—we will have lost our entire manufacturing base. No one is asking for special treatment; we are asking for a level playing field that will allow the industry to move forward with confidence. Four months on since we last debated this issue, the steel industry is still in crisis. I urge the Minister to show more energy than his predecessors and do what it takes to save our steel.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
If the Minister would just allow a few minutes at the end for the wind-up speech, that would be appreciated.
Oral Answers to Questions
Gill Furniss Excerpts(8 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Clark
The steel industry is a very important industry in our country. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I grew up in Teesside where it was particularly prominent. I had some productive discussions in the summer, including visiting south Wales to make sure the Government can give the right support to a sustainable future for the steel industry, and I am happy to make the hon. Gentleman aware of these discussions.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Jesse Norman)
Solar deployment is a UK success story, with almost 11 GW of capacity now installed. While it is appropriate to allow for a period of stability following recent changes to protect consumer bills, the Secretary of State continues to keep the performance of the feed-in tariff scheme under review.
Gill Furniss
A PricewaterhouseCoopers report in July showed almost 60% of companies are looking to diversify away from solar, and nearly four in 10 are considering leaving the solar market entirely, as a result of the Government’s policy changes. What steps will the Minister take to avoid business confidence in this important sector dropping further?
Jesse Norman
Actually, there is remarkably little sign that confidence in the sector is dropping. There is a recognition that those changes had to be made and the sector has responded remarkably resiliently. We must not forget that it has also been spreading expertise in solar internationally, which is another reason for thinking this is a real long-term success story.