GKN: Proposed Takeover by Melrose

Jack Dromey Excerpts

Tuesday 27th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. This has been a successful business, and whether we are talking about the defence industries or the aerospace sector, these are areas of British strength in which we expect and want to see improved export performance around the world. For all the reasons that he describes, it seems important, before the opportunity is taken away through the closing of the bid, notwithstanding the fact that these are voluntary undertakings, to press the company to make clear its intentions.

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

I led the battle against the Kraft takeover of Cadbury. That was wrong then, as the Melrose takeover of GKN is wrong now. The commitments that have been given—less on research and development, no guarantee that it will all be done in this country, five years on aerospace in a sector that typically thinks 15 years ahead, and no guarantees on Driveline—are simply not good enough. Those are “guarantees” that do not go far enough. This cannot be the last word. I have two questions. First, will the Secretary of State be seeking further undertakings from Melrose? Secondly, can he confirm unambiguously that, if advised that there are defence and strategic grounds that merit it, he will intervene and block this hostile bid?

[Greg Clark]

Given the hon. Gentleman’s experience of Cadbury and Kraft, he will know that there was no possibility of taking any legally binding undertakings as to their future behaviour. We saw the consequences of that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) said. I have been very clear with the House that what has been extracted from the company by way of commitments is without prejudice to my statutory powers. Of course I will make the decision seriously, following expert advice from those concerned. In terms of commitments, the bidding company made certain statements in response to the Select Committee. It has made further statements in response to my letter. I dare say that the views of Members expressed today will be heard by both companies concerned and can be taken into account in the remaining days of the bid.

GKN: Proposed Takeover by Melrose

Jack Dromey Excerpts

Thursday 15th March 2018 Westminster Hall

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.

Guest, Keen and Nettlefolds has a ring to it, and GKN is an iconic engineering company, a British success story with a history stretching back over 259 years, founded in south Wales. Three years ago, I remember a man who had worked 44 years for GKN calling it “as British as the royal family”.

Here in Britain, GKN employs 6,000 people across major sites in Filton near Bristol, Birmingham and, in particular, the Isle of Wight. It now employs 58,000 people worldwide, with companies and joint ventures in more than 30 countries. Crucially, GKN undertakes the largest portion of its research and development work in the UK, with the majority of aerospace R&D taking place in Filton and automotive R&D in Abingdon.

I welcome the all-party approach to this issue, and the hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) is right to say that we talk with pride about GKN, its workers and what it does—so do I. The Driveline factory is in my constituency—800 excellent men and women who serve the industry and the nation well.

The takeover puts a great British engineering icon into jeopardy, because of not only the history of Melrose but what is happening with some of GKN’s major customers. Reference has already been made to the revelations made only yesterday in the Financial Times about what Airbus has made abundantly clear. In the words of its chief operating officer:

“The nature of our industry is one that requires a commitment to long-term investment and strategic vision...The industry does not lend itself to shorter-term financial investment which naturally reduces R&D budgets and limits vital innovation.”

As my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) rightly said, typically we are talking about development lines and R&D strategies that stretch over 20 or 30 years, and the Airbus chief operating officer went on:

“It would be practically impossible for us to give any new work to GKN under such an ownership model when we don’t know who will be the long-term investor.”

He is right and—I can say this with confidence—others will follow in the days to come.

As the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Seely) said earlier, Melrose has a chequered past with regards to the companies it has owned. For example, Melrose owned Dynacast from 2005 to 2011, during which time it moved much production overseas to—in its words—“cheaper countries”. Melrose closed its Alcester site the same year that it took over the company and had no UK presence between 2005 and 2008. In July 2008 it acquired the FKI group, of which manufacturing firm Brush is part. Melrose began selling off parts of the group in 2009 and sold off about 15 businesses between 2009 and 2014. It implemented severe job cuts at the Brush plant in Loughborough, taking the number of employees down from 1,200 to 600, with a further 270 redundancies announced this year, again moving production overseas and hollowing out a once great company.

One of the workforce’s big concerns, which I share, is pensions. As the hon. Member for Redditch said, like many UK companies GKN has a significant pensions deficit that it is working hard to reduce. By agreement with its workforce and their trade unions, in 2017 the GKN group pension scheme was closed to future accruals. A contribution of £250 million was paid into the scheme. Crucially, on assessment of the company’s pensions covenant, the scheme was found to be the “high end of good”. No concern was expressed about GKN’s ability to deal with the pensions problem.

Significantly, however, Melrose has not given the guarantee it was asked for. On the contrary, its whole approach has been to increase debt significantly. The consequences of that will be to weaken the strength of the covenant and to put at risk the pension scheme. In the aftermath of tragedies such as Carillion and British Steel, the last thing we need at an iconic British engineering company is such a problem befalling the workers of GKN.

To turn to the defence issue, GKN Aerospace has 52 manufacturing locations across 14 countries and turnover of £3.5 billion, much of it defence work. Reference has been made to GKN Aerospace and what it does here and abroad. It supports the British armed forces, such as with the Typhoon, the F-35, the P-8, the A400M, the Chinook, the Apache and the MQ-9. Equally, many of the other platforms that GKN Aerospace is a part of support the armed forces of NATO allies. GKN is a strategic supplier of defence platforms, making canopies for the Typhoon, for example, or being a strategic supplier for the F-35. In factories all over Britain, its role in support of our armed forces and that of our NATO allies is critical.

In a former life, I was chairman of the defence unions and worked closely with the Ministry of Defence. Time and again at events and at first hand, I saw GKN on the ground with that intimate relationship with the Ministry of Defence and our allies. That is why I say to the Minister that he has the power to intervene. The Secretary of State has the power to intervene under section 52 of the Enterprise Act 2002.

Another reason I think this issue is important is that one of the last battles I fought in my former life was the battle against Kraft’s takeover of Cadbury. No one in Britain wanted it. Cadbury was a profitable, iconic British company that was taken over by a debt-laden American multinational. Guarantees were given, but the first guarantee about the Bristol plant was broken and it was closed. Sadly and inevitably, that led to a debate about tightening up the rules on corporate takeovers.

The Government have made some faltering progress in the right direction, but they have gone nowhere near far enough. The Prime Minister has committed to look at the rules and to change them so that we do not have such bids ever again succeeding. Having said that, and however important the future debate is on general takeover regimes, the Government have the powers here and now. They have the grounds. If there is a will, there is a way. I earnestly hope that the Government will respond to the very substantial all-party concern that has been expressed in this place.

I feel a particular passion because I used to represent the people concerned. I have been into the GKN Driveline plant and others; I have seen men and women who are the salt of the earth, with 25, 30, 35 or 40 years’ service, following their mums and dads. I have been into their homes; they have GKN awards and certificates up on their walls. They are proud of who they are and what they do. This country is proud of GKN, and the last thing we want to see is for GKN, that great British engineering icon, to become history.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jack Dromey Excerpts

Tuesday 30th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Richard Harrington]

Infrastructure is a major pillar of the Government’s industrial strategy White Paper, and local input is essential. I welcome Transport for the North’s input, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will welcome this, too.

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

The hostile takeover of GKN by Melrose threatens break-up, sale and closures. The Secretary of State has powers under section 58 of the Enterprise Act 2002 to intervene. Will he intervene to block this hostile takeover, which is not in the national interest?

[Greg Clark]

I have explained to other Members the importance of exercising these powers in the required way and of not giving a running commentary in this House.

Draft Unified Patent Court (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2017

Jack Dromey Excerpts

Wednesday 29th November 2017 General Committees

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey.

We are a creative nation of entrepreneurs and innovators. In the 19th century, Birmingham and the Black country were known as the workshop of the world, and in modern times we have silicon roundabout about 2 miles away, the golden triangle of London, Oxford and Cambridge, and remarkable innovation from Jaguar Land Rover in the midlands and the north of England. I will never forget travelling with Jaguar Land Rover’s chief executive Ralf Speth in his Land Rover and seeing how the company was using its close proximity to a cluster of companies engaged in the games industry to produce the next generation of in-car entertainment systems. Crucial to that was the protection of patents.

I have seen at first hand, and I am sure that many Members have likewise seen, just why it is important that we remain a nation of innovation. In future, we will want to attract the brightest and the best as we leave the European Union, and crucially in that process we need sensible arrangements that protect the interests of Britain. I will come back to that point later.

At the heart of turning ideas into commercial practice is protection from poaching, as well as the patent system that has grown up over many years. Such protection is of the highest order including, as the Minister said, both domestic and international mechanisms on the one hand, and immunity, as is proposed by the order, on the other hand.

The European Patent Office was founded in 1977. We signed up to the unified patent court in 2013, together with 25 other member states in the European Union, and the necessary arrangements were finalised shortly after the decision by our country on Brexit. The order seeks to confer necessary legal status as we approach the next stages, for the avoidance of any doubt, and we believe that to be an eminently sensible move, which the Opposition wholeheartedly support.

Finally, it is all the more important that we have such domestic and Europe-wide arrangements at a time of immense uncertainty in our country, to help to reassure creative people and innovators that we are serious about remaining a creative nation of innovators. Dare I say to the Minister that in reaffirming that existing European arrangements should continue to obtain in the future, hopefully that will form a precedent when it comes to next-stage discussions on the single market and the customs union? On those fronts, we will also need sensible arrangements, whereby we will have full access to and will enjoy the benefits of those arrangements that have served this nation well for many years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joseph Johnson]

I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington for supporting the order, and for recognising the role that the court will play in ensuring that we have a system that encourages innovation and protects companies that invest in research and development. Those companies are able to go on and commercialise the discoveries that they make without fear of their hard work and efforts leading to nothing, or being taken advantage of by competitors that have not made those investments in discovery.

I thank the hon. Member for Wallasey for asking some important questions; I will now try to respond to as many as I can. She asked principally about the impact that leaving the EU will have on the operation of the UPC, and what our relationship to the UPC will be after March 2019, when we will be in the process of leaving the EU. To be clear, the UPC itself, as she knows, is not an EU institution, but currently all participating member states are EU member states. Our position is that while the UK remains a member of the EU, we will and should complete all necessary legislation, so that we are in a position to ratify the agreement.

Whatever the UK’s future relationship with the unified patent court, we expect that, as the hon. Lady said, we will need to negotiate with our European partners, to reflect the change to the UK’s status in relation to the UPC that will take place when we leave the EU. As a Government, we believe that it would be wrong to set out any unilateral positions in advance of the negotiations that we know we are going to have to have, because our efforts will need to be focused on securing the best possible deal for the UK in our negotiations with our European partners.

[Jack Dromey]

This is an important point for the avoidance of doubt on the part of the innovators and entrepreneurs of our country. Our support for the order is given on the basis that it will be an enduring mechanism now and after we leave the European Union. Is the Minister suggesting that having given legal effect to the order, the situation might change post-Brexit? That will be a source of immense concern to innovators and entrepreneurs in our country.

[Joseph Johnson]

Through the passage of the order and completing all the necessary legislative steps in Parliament, we want to ensure that we are in a position to ratify the UPC and our membership of it, thus enabling it to come into existence. As the hon. Gentleman and Members know, under the terms of the international treaty, UK ratification is required for the UPC to come into existence, and we want the court to come into existence. We have been supporters of it from the outset, and we think it will play an important role in enabling businesses to enforce their intellectual property rights at the lowest possible cost, or certainly at a much lower cost than many companies find to be the case at the moment. We are supportive of it, and we want to continue to play a facilitating role in setting it up.

After we leave the European Union in March 2019, we understand that we will have to negotiate a new relationship with the UPC. We want to do that as seamlessly as possible so that businesses can continue to take advantage of the provisions that the UPC makes possible. Our expectation is that the long-term relationship we will have to establish after March 2019 will be subject to some negotiation. I and the Government as a whole do not want to go into the detail of exactly what that relationship will be at this point.

Unified Patent Court (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2017

Jack Dromey Excerpts

Wednesday 29th November 2017 General Committees

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey.

We are a creative nation of entrepreneurs and innovators. In the 19th century, Birmingham and the Black country were known as the workshop of the world, and in modern times we have silicon roundabout about 2 miles away, the golden triangle of London, Oxford and Cambridge, and remarkable innovation from Jaguar Land Rover in the midlands and the north of England. I will never forget travelling with Jaguar Land Rover’s chief executive Ralf Speth in his Land Rover and seeing how the company was using its close proximity to a cluster of companies engaged in the games industry to produce the next generation of in-car entertainment systems. Crucial to that was the protection of patents.

I have seen at first hand, and I am sure that many Members have likewise seen, just why it is important that we remain a nation of innovation. In future, we will want to attract the brightest and the best as we leave the European Union, and crucially in that process we need sensible arrangements that protect the interests of Britain. I will come back to that point later.

At the heart of turning ideas into commercial practice is protection from poaching, as well as the patent system that has grown up over many years. Such protection is of the highest order including, as the Minister said, both domestic and international mechanisms on the one hand, and immunity, as is proposed by the order, on the other hand.

The European Patent Office was founded in 1977. We signed up to the unified patent court in 2013, together with 25 other member states in the European Union, and the necessary arrangements were finalised shortly after the decision by our country on Brexit. The order seeks to confer necessary legal status as we approach the next stages, for the avoidance of any doubt, and we believe that to be an eminently sensible move, which the Opposition wholeheartedly support.

Finally, it is all the more important that we have such domestic and Europe-wide arrangements at a time of immense uncertainty in our country, to help to reassure creative people and innovators that we are serious about remaining a creative nation of innovators. Dare I say to the Minister that in reaffirming that existing European arrangements should continue to obtain in the future, hopefully that will form a precedent when it comes to next-stage discussions on the single market and the customs union? On those fronts, we will also need sensible arrangements, whereby we will have full access to and will enjoy the benefits of those arrangements that have served this nation well for many years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joseph Johnson]

I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington for supporting the order, and for recognising the role that the court will play in ensuring that we have a system that encourages innovation and protects companies that invest in research and development. Those companies are able to go on and commercialise the discoveries that they make without fear of their hard work and efforts leading to nothing, or being taken advantage of by competitors that have not made those investments in discovery.

I thank the hon. Member for Wallasey for asking some important questions; I will now try to respond to as many as I can. She asked principally about the impact that leaving the EU will have on the operation of the UPC, and what our relationship to the UPC will be after March 2019, when we will be in the process of leaving the EU. To be clear, the UPC itself, as she knows, is not an EU institution, but currently all participating member states are EU member states. Our position is that while the UK remains a member of the EU, we will and should complete all necessary legislation, so that we are in a position to ratify the agreement.

Whatever the UK’s future relationship with the unified patent court, we expect that, as the hon. Lady said, we will need to negotiate with our European partners, to reflect the change to the UK’s status in relation to the UPC that will take place when we leave the EU. As a Government, we believe that it would be wrong to set out any unilateral positions in advance of the negotiations that we know we are going to have to have, because our efforts will need to be focused on securing the best possible deal for the UK in our negotiations with our European partners.

[Jack Dromey]

This is an important point for the avoidance of doubt on the part of the innovators and entrepreneurs of our country. Our support for the order is given on the basis that it will be an enduring mechanism now and after we leave the European Union. Is the Minister suggesting that having given legal effect to the order, the situation might change post-Brexit? That will be a source of immense concern to innovators and entrepreneurs in our country.

[Joseph Johnson]

Through the passage of the order and completing all the necessary legislative steps in Parliament, we want to ensure that we are in a position to ratify the UPC and our membership of it, thus enabling it to come into existence. As the hon. Gentleman and Members know, under the terms of the international treaty, UK ratification is required for the UPC to come into existence, and we want the court to come into existence. We have been supporters of it from the outset, and we think it will play an important role in enabling businesses to enforce their intellectual property rights at the lowest possible cost, or certainly at a much lower cost than many companies find to be the case at the moment. We are supportive of it, and we want to continue to play a facilitating role in setting it up.

After we leave the European Union in March 2019, we understand that we will have to negotiate a new relationship with the UPC. We want to do that as seamlessly as possible so that businesses can continue to take advantage of the provisions that the UPC makes possible. Our expectation is that the long-term relationship we will have to establish after March 2019 will be subject to some negotiation. I and the Government as a whole do not want to go into the detail of exactly what that relationship will be at this point.

Budget Resolutions

Jack Dromey Excerpts

1st reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 28th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

The latest lame defence from this Government, as we stand up for the people of Britain, is that somehow we are talking Britain down—that is nonsense. This failing Government are letting the people of Britain down, driving it down the international league table. We have the worst record in the G7 on wages, productivity, skills and growth, and we are bottom bar one—Lithuania—in the EU on worker participation, and all this from a Prime Minister who promised workers on the board. Today’s Social Mobility Commission report has shown that the heart of England, the midlands, is the worst region for social mobility for those from poor backgrounds. The historical comparisons are staggering. This is the worst decade for productivity growth since Napoleon was retreating from Moscow, then to be defeated at the battle of Waterloo in 1815. The last time wages were stagnant for so long a royal prince was about to get married—Prince Arthur, Victoria’s son—Disraeli and Gladstone were in Downing Street, and trade unions were illegal. That was 150 years ago.

Over the past seven days, I have seen the consequences of this Budget. I have seen the consequences for schools and headteachers, with one in tears at the fact that there was not one penny more and at now being faced with having to lay off teachers and teaching assistants. I have seen the police despairing at 2,000 police officers having gone and at rapidly rising crime, with violent crime up 6%, gun crime up 15% and knife crime up 17%. At a packed meeting last Friday, local people were pouring out their hearts, with a woman who had been 60 years in Slade Road saying that she no longer goes out at night because she is afraid so to do. I have heard the concern expressed by carers on Carers Rights Day, when 200 of them gathered together. There are none so noble as those who care, but they are finding it increasingly difficult because of the lack of support for them directly and because of the crisis in social care. All that is allied to the disastrous mishandling of Brexit, the impact of which is increasingly being felt where I was on Friday, at the Jaguar factory in my constituency. This jewel in the crown of manufacturing excellence has transformed the lives of thousands, but it now faces an uncertain future.

The Chancellor cracked all sorts of jokes in his Budget—he has a new found sense of humour. As our Amy used to say, “Dad, you should be on the stage. There’s one leaving in half an hour.” There was a new found sense of humour, but the reality is that this was a bad joke Budget, because in terms of facing up to the challenges facing the people of Britain, it let the people of Britain down. It was the same old Tories; in the words of the Prime Minister herself, “Nothing has changed.”

Oral Answers to Questions

Jack Dromey Excerpts

Tuesday 7th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

We met the SMMT and all members of the sector to discuss every aspect of the challenges and opportunities ahead. The hon. Lady is of course right that Brexit is very much on the minds of every motor manufacturer, which is why the discussions we have had reinforced our commitment not only to secure a good deal at high level, but to make sure all the particular aspects for that industry are addressed. The industry was also enthusiastic about our clear commitment, with mounting enthusiasm being shown on the part of our partners, big and small, to invest in the future and to make sure that what makes Britain attractive as a place to locate continues to be so in the future.

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

Ten years in low-paid work and then four years a Jaguar apprentice, I will never forget Warren waxing lyrical about the job that he loves, and moving into, in his words, the house of his dreams with the woman of his dreams. Does the Secretary of State begin to understand that, as a consequence of this Government’s disastrous mishandling of Brexit, investment has fallen by over 50%? Does he begin to recognise the damage the Government are doing to workers like Warren and the jewel in the crown of British manufacturing?

[Greg Clark]

If the hon. Gentleman talks to people in the motor industry, as in other industries, he will know that no one is more vigorous and active than I am in meeting prospective investors to explain our strategy and the attractiveness of the UK. As a result of the industry’s work, supported by the Government, we have had a commitment from BMW to build the electric Mini in the UK, Toyota is investing a quarter of a billion pounds in Derbyshire, Nissan has confirmed that it will build two new models in Sunderland, and other discussions are continuing. That work, in the context of the need for continued good access to the European market, is giving confidence to the industry. I would have hoped that it was a matter of consensus across the House that we should maintain that confidence, rather than seek to undermine it.

Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill

Jack Dromey Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 20th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

On 13 March 1942, in New End hospital, the older brother that I never knew, James John Dromey, died at three days old. I do not know whether my mother had difficulty, as a trainee nurse, in getting support from her employer. What I do know is that the trauma of losing that three-day-old baby stayed with her for the rest of her life. For years she was reluctant to talk about it, and the scars and the pain never went away. That is why, for me, the Bill is so important.

The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) is to be congratulated on championing a noble cause. I would also like to pay tribute to the parliamentary pioneer of the legislation that I am confident we will pass through this House: the hon. Member for Colchester (Will Quince). I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) and the hon. Members for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) and for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) on the work they have done, born out of bitter experience, to ensure that, in future, grieving parents get the support that they deserve.

Like the hon. Member for Banbury, I am a patron of the Bliss charity, which does wonderful work in neonatal intensive care units. I will never forget going to see the one-to-one nursing of babies hanging on to their lives and fighting desperate battles to recover. I remember an instance when Mandy McKeon, a constituent of mine, told a meeting of parents what it had been like for her. She told them that her son Liam had died seven times but that he had eventually recovered. She described the joy when that happened. I pay tribute to the courage of the hon. Member for Banbury for telling her story at a Bliss reception—she was in tears, and so was I.

The Bill is a very welcome initiative. It offers two weeks’ paid leave to any employed parent who loses a child under 18. That is right. It is right that every employee will be eligible for this right, irrespective of their length of service. It is right that in addition employed parents with at least 26 weeks’ continuous service will be eligible for statutory parental bereavement leave, and it is right that we move beyond the ACAS code of practice to enact legal rights. The code of practice is admirable and most employers follow it—most employers are good employers—but too many are oblivious to the pain being suffered by grieving parents. I remember, many years ago when I was a district officer with the Transport and General Workers Union, sitting down with a young woman in the EMI factory in Hayes, west London, as she poured out her heart about how difficult it had been losing her baby and how bitter she was that her employer had not shown one ounce of sympathy or solidarity. So, yes, most employers are good employers and do the right thing, but many do not, which is why we need a change in the law.

The CBI, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, the TUC and all the major organisations in the world of work support the Bill. I am proud that the Bill, in creating a legal entitlement for parents, will go significantly further than equivalent legislation in many countries, including in western Europe, and so the Labour party strongly supports it. It is a positive step forward in supporting parents who lose a child. I stress again, as hon. Members here know, that losing a child is the most traumatic and tragic experience.

There will, of course, be issues to tease out in Committee. Points have already been made about employees with irregular contracts—agency workers, zero-hours contracts —and about whether parents in receipt of benefits should be entitled to no claim conditionality for the same period as bereavement leave to ensure that they continue to receive their full income during this time. Crucially, of course, all workers should have the same rights to pay and leave in the case of a child’s death, irrespective of the nature of their contract of employment.

There is much good will on these issues across the House. We have an opportunity to construct a Bill that will send an unambiguous message to the country that we are on the side of grieving parents. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) is right that this is a good example of Parliament coming together in a noble cause. We will work to ensure that the Bill passes through all its parliamentary stages as quickly as possible and to put in place legislation that recognises that to lose a child is an appalling tragedy, but that then to suffer from a lack of sympathy and support adds trauma to tragedy. No parent should be denied the time to grieve and make the basic necessary arrangements. No parent should have to worry about whether they can pay the bills if they take time off. That should never happen again.

The hon. Member for Colchester was right to say that we have heard the voice of the grieving, and I pay particular tribute to the champions here who have suffered the trauma themselves. We are on their side, and Parliament is determined to make a difference.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jack Dromey Excerpts

Tuesday 12th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Margot James]

I remind the hon. Lady that the Government set the national living wage, but only after consultation with the independent Low Pay Commission. It is the commission’s view that we need to have several levels of the national minimum wage because youth unemployment is persistently higher than unemployment among those above the age of 25. The policy is really to balance maximum earning power with maximum levels of employment.

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

According to the Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, the last time wages were stagnant for so long was 150 years ago, when Gladstone was Prime Minister, Darwin was launching the theory of evolution and trade unions were illegal. Now we know from Library figures that, year on year, wages went up under the previous Labour Government and, year on year, wages have gone down under this Conservative Government. Is it not simply the truth that workers get a pay rise under Labour and a pay cut under the Tories?

[Margot James]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that this Government are concerned not just about pay, but about employment. If we look at the record of the previous Labour Government—or, indeed, that of any Labour Government—we see that their record on employment is poor. The record of this Government is the maximum number of jobs, with more than 1 million new jobs created, which is an important point. If he wants to talk about anniversaries, let me say that this week is the 10th anniversary of the financial crisis, and I remind him of the deficit that this Government inherited following that crash.

Blacklisting

Jack Dromey Excerpts

Tuesday 5th September 2017 Westminster Hall

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

Thank you very much, Mr Walker. May I first congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Chuka Umunna) on his outstanding advocacy of a noble cause?

Trade unions are a force for good. To be denied work because you are a trade unionist is an affront to democracy. Blacklisting is not history; it is a scandal that has never gone away. Forty years ago, when I came out of the Grunwick strike, I was blacklisted by the Economic League. I was one of the 30,000 subversives, as they defined us at the time. I was out of work for a matter of months and then became an officer of the Transport and General Workers’ Union, but tens of thousands of others paid a very heavy price, some of them for decades. I then worked with The Guardian to expose the Economic League, leading ultimately to its demise, but it is absolutely scandalous that it was then reincarnated as another organisation, with the same practices.

It is absolutely scandalous that two generations on from the 1970s, we still have an industry—the construction industry—that has not learned the lessons of history and has not recognised that, as Keith Ewing, professor of public law at King’s College London has said, blacklisting is

“the worst human rights abuse in relation to workers”

in Britain in half a century.

Blacklisting has been outlawed, but the law is simply not strong enough. There has been some compensation for some of the victims of blacklisting, but it is not good enough, and that cynical manoeuvre was about companies trying to protect themselves from public scrutiny and escape their crimes being made public. No user company has been punished for blacklisting. No director has ended up in the dock, and that is completely wrong.

The scale of blacklisting over the years is tens of thousands of workers. There is a long history of Government, the police and construction firms acting in collusion and, as we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham, blacklisting is happening right now by major and allegedly reputable companies that enjoy enormous public contracts such as Crossrail and Big Ben. It is important to reflect on the human consequences of continuous blacklisting and we have heard powerful testimony of that today.

Workers take a pride in their work and define themselves through their job. The issue is self-worth and identity. To be out of work for years not quite knowing why and then discovering it was because they did nothing else but ask for a safe workplace is a scandal.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

My constituent, Danny Regan was an electrician until he was blacklisted. He is not an electrician anymore and he still cannot work in that field because of the history of blacklisting. In supporting the call today for a public inquiry, does my hon. Friend agree that it should address the legacy of the impact of what happened in the past?

[Jack Dromey]

Without hesitation, I agree with my right hon. Friend, and I will come to that.

Over the years, hundreds of individuals have been blacklisted and I will give one example today. Dave Smith, joint secretary of the Blacklist Support Group, became virtually unemployable as a consequence of his file, which was first held by the Economic League and then by the Consulting Association. It was 36 pages long and stretched from 1992 to 2007, from his very first job with Balfour Beatty all the way through successive employment. His sin with Balfour Beatty was to take part in a dispute about unpaid wages. His file included personal information, including address and national insurance number, but also details of his wife and brother. That is an affront to democracy and the rights of working people, and demands further action. Members today were absolutely right when they said we need first and foremost a public inquiry into blacklisting, its use in the past, its current use, steps going forward to eradicate blacklisting, the role of the special demonstration squad, the role of the Consulting Association, and examination of evidence of blacklisting in publicly procured contracts. The truth needs finally to be fully told.

Secondly, we must strengthen legislation to stop the continuing practice of blacklisting and criminalise it. We must also ensure that the law is not limited to employment relationships because, by definition, if a worker is blacklisted he or she does not have an employment relationship. As Unite has argued, we must also tackle patterns of work generally in construction, such as bogus self-employment. The argument is that 10 million workers are in insecure employment where employers can abuse without fear, and blacklisting very often follows.

Thirdly, we need strong rules covering Government contracts awarded to firms complicit in blacklisting. There must be consequences for blacklisting. It is a scandal that the Big Ben contract has gone to McAlpine, one of the first blacklisting offenders. I suspect that we here do not give a damn about the Big Ben bong, but we give a damn that that firm, which blacklisted workers and treated them shamefully, has an iconic contract just yards from where we are.

We need effective action, including at local authority level. I particularly praise Liverpool for its social value charter, which refers to respect for all individuals and does not engage in any form of discrimination or blacklisting practices—in other words, an unmistakeable message must be sent and enforced that a company suspected of blacklisting does not get public contracts.

Fourthly, we must make sure that specific laws banning blacklisting and data protection are retained after we leave the European Union.

In conclusion, as we have heard today, blacklisting is not history. We must learn from the lessons of history and ultimately confine blacklisting to history. That is why we need a public inquiry, strengthening of the law and absolute clarity that companies do not get public contracts if they blacklist. The time has come to blacklist the blacklisters.

[Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Before I call the Minister, may I ask her to leave a minute or two at the end for Mr Umunna to sum up?

--- Later in debate ---

[Margot James]

I will write to the hon. Gentleman on that matter. We expect high standards of corporate governance for major contracts awarded by the Government. If there is evidence of companies acting in the present day in not only a disreputable but a potentially illegal manner, that will be taken into consideration.

[Jack Dromey]

To press the Minister further on that point, we have heard powerful evidence today in relation to both Crossrail and Big Ben. Does she agree that if there is evidence of complicity in blacklisting, the companies concerned should not get public contracts until such time as they have remedied the bad practices of the past and, indeed, the present?

[Margot James]

The shadow Minister makes a very reasonable point, which I will consider further. I think there is nothing to disagree with in what he has said.

We want to build on the work already undertaken by the Information Commissioner’s Office looking at profiling and big data analytics. The Information Commissioner’s call for evidence, once complete, will be the most recent and authoritative source of data that we have. I can assure hon. Members that the Government will consider the evidence collected and the report on it very carefully indeed.

I want to acknowledge the request from the right hon. Member for Delyn (David Hanson). I have indeed received correspondence from Mr Alan Wainwright. I have looked at it briefly and will examine it thoroughly. The right hon. Gentleman also asked me to look again at the situation with regard to the Shrewsbury 24, and I will write to him on that subject as well.

The Government will continue to take a very close interest in this matter. If the Information Commissioner finds any evidence of current blacklisting, perpetrators can expect to feel the full force of the law, and I am sure—to go back to the shadow Minister’s intervention—that that would have implications for contracting as well. In the meantime, in the absence of clear, strong and compelling evidence to the effect that blacklisting is widespread, we remain of the view that the blacklisting regulations, alongside the proposed changes to the data protection rules, are appropriate and robust tools— the increased fines and accountability are further disincentives—to counter this abhorrent and illegal practice.

I urge all hon. Members to talk to their constituents who raise these matters with them and to the trade unionists in their constituency who have been affected, and to use the call for evidence as a means of exposing any current practice that might be continuing, so that we can eradicate this appalling abuse of people’s human rights at work once and for all.