Living Wage

Jack Dromey Excerpts

Thursday 6th November 2014 Commons Chamber

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

On Monday, at the launch of living wage week in Birmingham, a young apprentice, Ben Jordan, walked up to the platform with a bounce in his step and a smile on his face, and told the story of what life was like on the minimum wage in his previous job and what life was now like on the living wage, working as an apprentice for Unity Trust bank. He said, “Before, I had to work seven days a week. I never had a weekend off. I struggled to see my friends or to go to see my football team. Now, I have a better standard of living and I’ve got time off at the weekend. I cannot tell you what that has meant for me.”

The event in Birmingham was remarkable and Citizens UK is a remarkable organisation; we had all the faiths and those of no faith. We had imams quoting from the Koran and Catholics quoting from the Bible, but everyone was making the moral case for the living wage. We had several of the 100 employers who have now signed up to the living wage; these are accredited employers in Birmingham, including the Witton Lodge Community Association, in my constituency. Crucially, the council is involved, including its deputy leader, Ian Ward. I am proud to say that the first thing the new council did in 2012 upon being elected to office was to introduce the living wage for all its directly employed employees. Subsequently, it introduced it for those working for schools and now ours is the first council in the country to insist that in future all contracts for care will be let on the living wage. As he has said, “Why is it that, historically, we have paid the least to those who care for those we value the most?” On Monday, we also saw an ambitious objective being set: 100 employers now is to become 1,000 employers this time next year. But we are an ambitious city and that is what we will achieve, not least because more and more employers are speaking out and saying, “This is right and it makes good business sense.”

In a previous debate on low pay, I referred to the fact that I am proud to have been a founder member of the drive for the living wage in London, working with what was then called TELCO—the East London Communities Organisation—and subsequently called London Citizens. I ran the union’s organising department. At first, we had 10 organisers—ultimately we had 12—who were cleaners themselves, and they were organising 4,000 cleaners in Canary Wharf and the City of London who were cleaning the boardrooms and toilets of those earning millions when they themselves were on the minimum wage. We also organised the cleaners of the House of Commons, and that led to the first strike in the history of the House of Commons, in order to win the living wage. I am delighted that now, under your leadership, Madam Deputy Speaker, and that of the Speaker, the House of Commons is an accredited living wage employer, so setting an example to the rest of the country.

Through that experience I saw at first hand just what life was like on the breadline. I met the cleaner who said, “I have to do three or four jobs from Canary Wharf. I sleep on the bus from one job to the next. I never see my kids.” I met the cleaner here in the House of Commons who, when we were going outside during the campaign to win the living wage, said, “I’d prefer not to, Jack.” When I asked why, he said, “I don’t want my community—my people—to know that I am but a minimum wage cleaner.” More recently, I sat down with three women in the Erdington food bank, two of whom were on the minimum wage. One said, “I am trying to bring my kids up. I work hard, day in, day out, but it is so tough for me because I am on the minimum wage. Jack, for me, it is not a life. I simply exist.”

The case for the living wage is overwhelming. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) for initiating this debate, in which we have heard some thoughtful contributions from across the House, including those from the hon. Members for Newark (Robert Jenrick) and for Bedford (Richard Fuller). We need to make the argument with force. First, the living wage is right for the worker, as it is about dignity at work. Secondly, it is right for the worker’s family, because it is about giving the worker more time to spend with their family. Thirdly, it is right for the taxpayer. We have nearly 120,000 working poor in Birmingham who have to claim housing benefit to pay their rent, because they are on low wages. Fourthly, it is right for the local economy. Low-paid workers who earn more spend their money locally, and that helps to boost local economies. Fifthly, it is right for the employer. All my experience in the trade union movement tells me that the living wage reduces turnover, induces greater co-operation, facilitates greater productivity and reduces absenteeism. Some employers I have met have been initially reluctant to take on board the concept of a living wage, but when they have seen it work in practice, they have said, “The living wage is good for business.”

Action is necessary, not least in the city that I am proud to represent. One in three women in Erdington earns less than the living wage—in the midlands, the figure is one in four. But progress is now being made. It is how we drive it forward to the next stage. I welcome the Labour Front-Bench team’s proposals, which include not only incentivising employers to introduce the living wage but using public procurement power. It is crucial that we give a clear lead on the matter, because this is also about the kind of country that we wish to live in. Do we really want to live in a country where workers sleep on the bus between jobs and where workers never see their families? Those workers pay a very heavy price for existing on poverty pay.

In conclusion, let me pay tribute to those pioneers of the living wage—the remarkable people of TELCO, London Citizens and now Citizens UK—because they have served this nation well. Crucially, we want a great national will that says that we do not want to live in a country characterised by poverty pay. Our country best succeeds on the basis not of a low wage, low productivity economy but of a high wage, high productivity economy.

National Minimum Wage

Jack Dromey Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2014 Commons Chamber

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

In the spring, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition visited a remarkable woman, Rachel, on the Castle Vale estate in my constituency. She is a proud, working-class woman trying to bring up her child. She lost her job with the council as a consequence of the huge cuts that the Government are imposing on our city. She found a new job but she was on the minimum wage. She broke down in tears when she explained how difficult life is for her trying to bring up her kid with dignity and to pay her bills. She is a salt-of-the-earth working-class woman who works hard to get on. Sadly, she is typical of 30,000 people in Birmingham on the minimum wage.

I remember sitting down at the food bank run by the Baptist church on Erdington high street with three of the working poor. Two of them said exactly the same as Rachel, explaining in graphic detail what it was like to count every penny and to have their kids come home from school asking whether they could have something, only to be given an excuse for why it was not possible. One of them said—I will never forget her words—“Jack, I exist. For me this is no life.”

Before I came to this place, I was proud to serve the Transport and General Workers Union and then Unite. In the world of work, work forces showed me wage slips of £1.50, £2 and £2.50 an hour. A linen supply company in west London was supplying the swankiest hotels and restaurants and charging an arm and a leg for its services, but paying its workers £2 an hour. We unashamedly sought to organise an upward drive in pay and to end working poverty, and I remember the Conservative party’s bitter resistance to any serious steps to tackle low pay, particularly the notion that somehow the minimum wage would fundamentally undermine economic success in our country.

The national minimum wage is a landmark achievement and Labour’s legacy, but it is not good enough. The working poor are ambitious, and so are we. First, we want a much higher minimum wage and, secondly, its vigorous enforcement. When I was deputy general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, I chaired a coalition, which had all-party support across the House, that took the Gangmasters (Licensing) Bill into law. It was a remarkable coalition from plough to plate—from the National Farmers Union to the supermarkets. Even then, after the introduction of the minimum wage, when the Gangmasters Licensing Authority was up and running—it was a highly effective organisation—a company employing 1,500 strawberry pickers paid them, after deductions and charges, £20 or £25 a week for a 60 or 70-hour week. That is why vigorous enforcement of a higher minimum wage is crucial.

On the living wage, we are more ambitious than just wanting a minimum wage. We need a minimum wage for underpinning, but we are more ambitious, which is why we have championed the living wage. I am proud that I was a founder member of the drive for the living wage in London. I ran the union’s organising department. We had 100 organisers, 10 of whom were cleaners. With the East London Communities Organisation and London Citizens, we successfully mounted that campaign, which included 4,000 cleaners in Canary Wharf and the City of London. It was obscene to sit down with good men and women and to hear their stories about how they cleaned the toilets and boardrooms of bankers who were sometimes earning millions when they were on the national minimum wage. We won a living wage for them.

I am also proud that I led the first strike in the history of the House of Commons when we organised the cleaners here to achieve the living wage. To this day, I have their manifesto in my office. Good men and women were being paid a shameful wage in this mother of Parliaments.

[Richard Fuller]

It is a pleasure, Mr Deputy Speaker, to listen to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey). I have never led a strike—at least not since school. Does he agree that one concern is that those on both Front Benches are too timid about raising wages and that they do not have the passion he had when he led his trade union to do more? The issue is not fiddling about with the figure of £8 or £8.50, or whether we hit it naturally, but the courage that those on both Front Benches should have to address the real problem of people throughout the country working for low wages.

[Jack Dromey]

The hon. Gentleman speaks in good faith. All that I will say is that timidity is the preserve of his party’s Front Bench, whereas passion and determination characterise our side of the House.

As the Member of Parliament for Birmingham, Erdington, I am proud to say that Birmingham has been taking a lead in driving the living wage, first for those directly employed by the council, then for those working in schools, and now—it is the first time that any council in Britain has done this—for those employed in all future care contracts. Birmingham is working with a range of good employers, who are coming together and saying “We believe that the success of our city can be best achieved if workers are paid properly and treated fairly.”

[Mr McKenzie]

We should pay tribute to the numerous Labour-controlled councils all over the country—and I speak for Scotland in particular—who have led the way in securing a living wage for their employees.

[Jack Dromey]

I agree. Labour councils throughout Britain are taking the lead.

Experience tells me that a much higher minimum wage, and a living wage, are good. They are good for workers and for their dignity. I remember, during a dispute here at the House of Commons, meeting one excellent African cleaner. We were going to do a photo-call outside, but he said to me “I would prefer not to, Jack.” I asked “Why not?” He replied “I do not want anyone to know that I am a minimum-wage cleaner.”

A higher minimum wage is good for the family. I also remember sitting down with a group of men and women—along with Emmanuel, one of our organisers at Canary Wharf—to talk about what it was like to have to do two, three or four jobs at once in order to survive. One of them said “Jack, I sleep on the bus from one job to the other. I never see my family.” A higher minimum wage is good for employers, because all the evidence suggests—and KPMG and others have done some excellent work on this—that it contributes to higher productivity and reductions in turnover. It is good for the economy, because if low-paid workers get more money in their wage packets, they will not salt it away in the Cayman islands; they will go out and spend it in local shops and clubs, buying goods and services. It is also good for the welfare bill, because if the low-paid are paid more, they will rely on welfare support less. It is absolutely wrong for us in our country to be subsidising, on a grand scale, employers who pay low wages.

We should be thinking about what kind of country we want to be. The International Monetary Fund recently conducted a fascinating study of the problems that are inherent in unequal societies and what they mean in terms of social cohesion, but there is more to it than that. A successful modern economy cannot be based on low pay and low productivity. That is why Opposition Members argue, unashamedly and with passion, that we must espouse the cause of fair pay for every worker, so that no worker needs to live in working poverty any longer.

Government Members must hear about this in their constituencies; Opposition Members hear about it all the time. I remember one Stockland Green mum saying to me, “Jack, I keep being told that everything is fine. Recovery? What recovery? Do them up there understand what life is like for us down here?” For us, this is a noble cause. Of course it is about work, family, good workers succeeding, the economy and bringing down welfare bills, but, dare I say it, it is a moral cause as well.

Birmingham Schools

Jack Dromey Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Nicky Morgan]

I believe in looking forward and learning lessons; appreciating the work that I and many Members across the House do with our Muslim communities; recognising that the vast majority did not want or support what was happening in their schools; and looking to my Department and Birmingham city council to sort this out in order to provide the best possible education for children, which, we must not forget, is at the heart of this.

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

May I first disassociate myself from the shameful remarks of the hon. Member for Reading East (Mr Wilson)?

What happened in a handful of Birmingham schools was absolutely wrong, but the Secretary of State is absolutely right not to tar the entire Muslim community with the same brush. Does she accept that the problems in Birmingham are deep seated, long standing, and have involved all three political parties in successive administrations? Given that the council was right to say sorry, does she recognise, in the spirit of moving forward, that the Government should also express their regret? Will she now work with Birmingham to learn the lessons of what went wrong, to put things right in both Whitehall and the town hall, and to ensure that the interests of schoolchildren in Birmingham are put first?

[Nicky Morgan]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I think that I have made it very clear that the interests of schoolchildren and their families must be at the heart of this. That is what our education system is all about. It is about preparing our young people for modern Britain and the modern world. The tragedy is that that has not happened to some of our children in Birmingham.

I also think that I have been very clear about failings at various levels and in various organisations. I will certainly be working with Birmingham city council, in particular through the new commissioner. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is issuing a written ministerial statement on wider working and wider lessons for the council at about this time. It has been discussed with Sir Albert Bore, and I believe that it is welcomed by him and his team.

Birmingham Schools

Jack Dromey Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Inevitably, there was only so much I could say in the time allocated about the weaknesses in the schools identified. She homes in on one problem, which is that children who are at risk of being exposed to extremist views are often at risk of being exposed to views that are fundamentally offensive to those of us who believe in the equality of all human beings. Therefore, if there are concerns—anywhere in this House or outside—about children being exposed to those views or at danger of being exposed to those views, I hope that individuals will feel able to contact Ofsted using the new whistleblowing framework outlined by Sir Michael Wilshaw to ensure rapid investigation.

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

All faiths should subscribe to universal human values and universal human rights, including equal treatment of men and women. Where there is clear evidence in our schools of unacceptable practices, as there is in the case of a small minority of schools in Birmingham, it should be dealt with decisively. However, does the Secretary of State accept that it is important for politicians to act responsibly, and that it is wrong to use inflammatory language or to take steps that send the wrong message? To that end, what were the grounds for appointing a former of head of counter-terrorism to investigate Birmingham’s schools, and was it wise to do so?

[Michael Gove]

It was absolutely wise to appoint Peter Clarke to his role as commissioner. It is important to stress that he is looking at some of the wider allegations that were raised in the Trojan horse letter. Some of the allegations in the letter appear to be unfounded; others appear to be supported by the evidence that we have gathered. We need to make sure that Birmingham city council and every agency have the capacity necessary to keep children safe.

It is important to recognise that Peter Clarke has not just the investigative capability but the experience of working with the Charity Commission to ensure that public funds are properly used and that the public are properly protected. If the hon. Gentleman has any concerns about the integrity, probity or authority of Peter Clarke, he should please bring them to me. The time has come to recognise that the situation in Birmingham is sufficiently serious that a public servant of Peter Clarke’s skill is exactly the right person to investigate.

Motorsport Tyre Manufacturing

Jack Dromey Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2014 Westminster Hall

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

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hood.

Queen Victoria was on the throne when the Dunlop Motorsport factory first produced tyres. The factory has 125 years of remarkable history. To this day, it produces 250,000 tyres a year, including vintage tyres—it still has the technology to produce wooden wheels—race tyres and the latest, state-of-the-art tyres for motorsport. The factory also has a remarkable work force. They are highly skilled, and sons and daughters have followed their mothers and fathers there over the generations.

[Mr Jim Hood (in the Chair)]

Order. Will Members please leave the Chamber quietly instead of having a chat during the debate?

[Jack Dromey]

I met one particular constituent in Kingstanding. He spoke about how he had worked for the factory for 20 years, his father-in-law had worked there for 42 years and his grandfather for 40 years—more than 100 years of service, all told.

When I was elected, my first priority was the future of the Jaguar plant, which was doomed to close. I worked with Tata Motors and the new management, and six months later came the historic announcement by Tata of its commitment to Britain and to Birmingham. Subsequently, we have seen Jaguar Land Rover become a world-class success story, with the Jaguar plant in my constituency now secure for the future.

The plant needs to expand, so Jaguar bought the land on which the Dunlop factory is located. Dunlop could have bought that land but declined so to do. A year ago, therefore, we swung into action and engaged with the company, with Birmingham city council and with the Homes and Communities Agency. I thank Sir Albert Bore, the leader of the council, and the Homes and Communities Agency for the way they worked with the company to identify a site but three miles from the current site in Erdington, at Aston advanced manufacturing hub.

Indeed, on 24 July Sir Albert Bore wrote to Dunlop, saying that there was sufficient land available at a competitive price and that the council would assist with a package to aid relocation of the factory. There was no answer. In parallel, I met senior management of the company three times over a nine-month period, together with the unions representing the work force, the GMB and Unite. On each occasion I asked whether the company would agree to look at alternatives in Birmingham. There was no answer.

In November I wrote to the global chief executive of Goodyear, Rich Kramer, who is based in Ohio in the United States of America, and asked, “Would you look at alternatives for remaining in Birmingham?” There was no answer. I then approached Jaguar Land Rover, and asked whether it would be prepared to extend Dunlop’s lease to allow Dunlop time to build a new factory and relocate. Jaguar Land Rover said to me, “Jack, we can’t get an answer.” However, it agreed to extend the lease by a further three months. There was still no answer from Dunlop.

I then asked the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills to intervene, and he did so. I cannot praise him too highly for the steps that he took. He convened an urgent meeting with the chair of Goodyear Dunlop in Britain and Ireland, Erich Fric, on 30 January. Seven times I had to ask, “Will you look at options to remain in Birmingham?” The first six times, there was no answer. Eventually, on the seventh occasion, the chief executive said, “Yes, we will.” The Business Secretary pushed the button straight away for a meeting, which took place the following day, between civil servants from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, Birmingham city council, the Homes and Communities Agency and UK Trade & Investment. The people at that meeting identified three proposals for Dunlop to relocate in Birmingham, and said that they would put together a package to assist that relocation.

A meeting was scheduled with Dunlop for the following Friday. We thought that at last it was going to do the decent thing and look at alternatives. However, but four days after that meeting, on 3 February Goodyear Dunlop announced its intention to cease manufacturing in Birmingham. In my 40 years in the world of work, I cannot remember any employer acting with such cavalier contempt towards a loyal and long-standing work force. A decision had been made 3,600 miles away, in Ohio, when the factory could have moved but 3 miles and remained in Birmingham.

Dismay has been expressed throughout Birmingham. The city has a great industrial history and the Dunlop factory in Erdington has been a great part of that history. Dismay has also been expressed by the £9 billion motorsport industry. Dismay has been expressed at the highest levels, including by our Prime Minister—I thank the Prime Minister for his intervention, in which he urged Goodyear Dunlop to look seriously at alternatives so as to remain in Birmingham.

Dismay has also been expressed by the reputable Dunlop, Dunlop Aircraft Tyres. Its factory is also in my constituency, and is mercifully no longer owned by Goodyear. It has issued a press statement, and its chairman, Ian Edmondson, could not be clearer: whatever Goodyear does with the motorsport factory, Dunlop Aircraft Tyres is committed to Birmingham, will invest in Birmingham and will grow its business in Birmingham—what a contrast with Goodyear Dunlop motorsports. I thank him for what he has said and done. I also thank the Birmingham Post and the Birmingham Mail for their outstanding championing of the cause of the motorsport factory. They have stood up for Birmingham.

Dismay has been expressed in those ways, but what has been particularly heartbreaking is the dismay expressed by the work force. I will quote from one of the many e-mails I received shortly after the announcement was made. This particular individual has worked in the factory for nearly 30 years. He said:

“To be cast aside like a spare penny is heartbreaking and gut wrenching. I feel physically sick writing this, but feel our voices and our perspective of the situation have not been heard. I drove home today and pulled up on my driveway not even remembering how I got here. My brain is doing somersaults, not sure I’ll sleep tonight knowing I’ve got to get up at 5:00 and somehow drag myself back to the place that used to feed and clothe my family. A place I used to be proud to say I worked. A place that no longer needs my services after years of hard work and dedication, commitment and loyalty…the same company knows none of the above for me and my work mates.”

I have had so many other approaches of that kind, including one from a daughter who was absolutely distraught about her father. He is in his 50s and has worked at the factory for 25 years. He is not well, and his daughter said to me, “Jack, I fear for the future for him. I don’t know what he is going to do. He is in despair.”

It is not just dismay that has been caused: there is also the fear expressed by the work force. I have had e-mail after e-mail and approach after approach from people expressing their dismay but saying, “Please don’t identify me.” In the words of one:

“I’m a Dunlop motorsport employee and would really like you not disclose my contact with yourself as it will probably give good reason for them to dismiss myself”.

E-mail after e-mail, approach after approach, call after call has said exactly the same thing.

Birmingham and its workers will not be intimidated. Their message, our message, and the message of this House and of our Government—I pay tribute once again to the role the Government have played—is abundantly clear: Goodyear Dunlop has both a moral and a legal responsibility to look at the alternatives to closure that are on the table. My message to Goodyear Dunlop today is that even at this stage it should sit down, do the decent thing, engage, look at alternatives allowing it to remain in Birmingham, and not betray Birmingham and Britain.

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

rose—

[The Minister for Skills and Enterprise (Matthew Hancock)]

I am content.

[Jack Dromey]

Likewise.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jack Dromey Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

I frequently talk to the Secretary of State for Education. The change to funding for 18 year olds was not one made lightly; dealing with the deficit requires difficult decisions. We published the impact assessment on the consequences, which show that disadvantaged students are not affected disproportionately. If we did not have a budget deficit of £100 billion, life would undoubtedly be easier.

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

Queen Victoria was on the throne when the Dunlop Motorsport factory first produced wooden wheels and then rubber tyres in Erdington. Now, 125 years of history and 300 highly skilled jobs are at risk. Jaguar Land Rover needs the land for its welcome expansion. Birmingham city council has identified an alternative site about three miles away. But the global board, based in Ohio, has yet to commit to Birmingham and Britain—with only nine months left before the lease runs out. In thanking the Secretary of State for the welcome steps he has already taken, may I ask whether he will convene a top-level meeting with Goodyear Dunlop, involving both him and me, so that we can get a decision made that a great piece of our manufacturing history remains part of a great manufacturing future in this country?

[Vince Cable]

I am well aware of this issue and its importance to British manufacturing, and, indeed, to Birmingham. I would be happy, as I am sure would the Minister of State, to meet the key people in order to make sure that we get the right decision.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jack Dromey Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Schools (Mr David Laws)]

We will ensure that head teachers have proper flexibility and that they see the conclusions of the school food plan, which demonstrates precisely how head teachers and schools can not only deliver free school meals in the future, but do so in a way that ensures their high quality.

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

One of Labour’s greatest achievements was 3,631 Sure Start centres, such as Story Wood and Lakeside in my constituency, transforming the lives of children. At the last general election, the then Leader of the Opposition said:

“Yes, we back Sure Start. It’s a disgrace that”

Labour

“has been trying to frighten people about this.”

Since then, 566 have closed. Is not the real disgrace making a promise to our nation’s children and then breaking it?

[Elizabeth Truss]

Last week, we heard that a record number of parents and children—more than 1 million—were using Sure Start centres. In fact, we have increased the number of sites: there are 3,000 children’s centres and a further 2,000 linked sites. The hon. Gentleman is referring to where management efficiencies have been made, but more parents are accessing our centres than ever before, and I think he should congratulate the centres on their success.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jack Dromey Excerpts

Thursday 8th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend, who I think took part himself in a trade mission to China last month. I encourage other hon. Members to follow in his footsteps.

UK Trade & Investment is building relationships with its private sector partners to increase awareness of its services for exporters throughout the networks. UKTI will host export week from 12 to 16 November, when there will be more than 100 events around the UK designed to reach out to small and medium-sized enterprises, including events being organised in the west midlands to promote forthcoming market visits to Austria and Romania.

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

T2. Jaguar Land Rover and Tata have committed to Birmingham and Britain, transforming the Jaguar plant in my constituency into a world-class success story. Just when the plant is taking on 1,100 workers, the High Speed 2 route unnecessarily threatens its rail terminal, which would have serious implications for the company and the community. Will the Secretary of State intervene with his counterpart in the Department for Transport and meet me, because nothing must be done to put at risk the success of the biggest plant in Birmingham?

[Vince Cable]

I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and anyone else concerned about this problem. I meet regularly with Jaguar Land Rover, as does the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon). This is not an issue that it has raised with us so far, but we are happy to pursue the matter. I want to reinforce what the hon. Gentleman said, however. This is a magnificent company investing £2 billion over this decade and creating high-level employment. The Government have made a substantial contribution to support it through the regional growth fund, support for the engine plant in Wolverhampton, which is now getting off the ground, and in other respects.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Jack Dromey Excerpts

Tuesday 16th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jo Swinson]

I accept the hon. Lady’s genuine concern about the issue she has raised: there is far too much of an equality gap in our society and between young white and black men. Of course, the Government are committed to tackling that. However, I question whether she really believes that section 3 of the 2006 Act will do that. The message that this sends is that this Government are committed to equality but focused on really making a difference. [Interruption.] I hear the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna), murmuring various things from a sedentary position, but if he really thinks that the EHRC, which was bequeathed to us by the previous Government, was functioning well and was effective, I do not know what planet he is living on. We should consider what has been said about the organisation’s effectiveness. Its accounts were not being signed off and it was wasting money; £866,000 was spent on a website that was never launched. It was not functioning well. It is important that we focus it on its specific duties, and that is what our amendments will do.

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

The hon. Lady has referred to the previous Government’s record. As deputy general secretary of Unite, I work very closely with the EHRC. May I give one example of effectiveness and ask her to comment on it? The commission conducted a ground-breaking analysis of the two-tier labour market in the supermarket supply chain, which causes division in the workplace and damages social cohesion. As a result, the supermarkets were brought to the table and told that enforcement powers would be used unless they changed the way in which they procured. Major changes were made as a consequence, so that all workers enjoyed equal treatment in the supply chain. Does the hon. Lady challenge that excellent example of the effectiveness of the EHRC?

[Jo Swinson]

I am not saying for a second that the EHRC did nothing right. We are committed to keeping it and refocusing it to make it more effective.

The general counsel said that

“other parts of the legislation provide sufficient clarity on what our job really is.”––[Official Report, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Public Bill Committee, 19 June 2012; c. 79, Q177.]

A raft of stakeholders has criticised how the EHRC was being run. Although it has done some good things, it was not being run in the efficient way that is required of an organisation with such an essential duty and such an essential role to play in the equalities and human rights make-up of our country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Umunna]

I want to make some progress; I have given way a few times now.

I welcome the addition of new clause 17 to the Bill. It will enable tribunals to recommend that an employer who loses an equal pay or sex discrimination case be required to carry out an equal pay audit. I simply want to raise one question about the scope of the measure. Is my understanding correct that it will apply to private sector employers only? Perhaps the Minister will expand on that point.

[Jack Dromey]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Procedurally, a number of barriers are being put in the way of people seeking justice and the enforcement of their rights. Does he share my view that closing the regional offices and reducing the commission to a rump of its former self will mean that those who are powerless, when challenging those with power who are denying them equality and equal treatment, will no longer have an Equality and Human Rights Commission that is fully behind them?

[Mr Umunna]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend.

I have absolutely no doubt that if the Minister were in opposition, she would be making many of the points that I am now making. She would be jumping up and down and objecting in the strongest terms to what the Government are now doing. I have referred to the assurance that was given, then broken, by the Secretary of State, which the Minister does not seem to recollect. May I also remind her of something that she said to the Deputy Prime Minister in this House? She said:

“Will the Deputy Prime Minister reassure my constituents that the Government will resist any siren calls to water down the Equality Act as part of the red tape challenge?”

The Deputy Prime Minister replied:

“I can certainly confirm that, as far as I am concerned, there will be no move to dilute incredibly important protections to enshrine and bolster equality in this country under the guise of dealing with unnecessary or intrusive regulation.”—[Official Report, 24 May 2011; Vol. 528, c. 770.]

Well, if that is not a broken promise, I do not know what is.

[Jack Dromey]

My hon. Friend has repeated back to the Minister something that she said on a previous occasion. Does he agree that she is conspicuous in her silence in now refusing to stand up and defend what she said at that time?

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

We will come on to the individual elements, but it is clear from the representations that have been received that there is sufficient concern. Let me put it no more strongly than that. For any Government whose members have arrived at consensus on a contentious issue to come along and break that consensus warrants much deeper consideration than is being given by the Government. The messages from the organisation itself, which is seeking to survive in whatever form it can, have been clear enough to most of us to suggest that it has an underlying concern that it will be unable to fulfil the role we have expected of it up until now.

[Jack Dromey]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point about the organisation’s inability to fulfil its role in the future. I have met the staff in the Birmingham office on the issue of disability access to public transport, from buses in Wolverhampton to the de-staffing of stations in the region by London Midland. The disabled are saying that they are being turned into second class citizens who are unable to access public transport and that the support of the Birmingham office of the EHRC is essential to them. Does my hon. Friend agree that if that office goes, so too will the champion of the disabled?

[John McDonnell]

I chair the PCS parliamentary group, which represents the union that represents the staff. I have therefore been involved in the discussion with them about the cuts that have taken place. The pressures that existing staff are under are immense. Reducing staff numbers still further will lead almost to the breakdown of the organisation.

Let me return to the Bill. We have been saying that there is real worry about the Government’s intent and the future of the organisation. The cuts in resources and staff are being compounded by the undermining of the legislative basis on which the organisation operates. It is that legal basis that we must consider.

On clause 52, the original legislation laid out a general duty to send out the message to which my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) referred. As a community we needed and continue to need the message that there is an organisation advising the Government that will encourage and support a society based on freedom from prejudice and discrimination—a society based on individual human rights, respect for the dignity and worth of each individual, equal opportunities to participate and a mutual respect between groups based on understanding and valuing diversity and shared respect for human rights. I do not think that society has changed so dramatically that that statement is irrelevant—it needs to be embodied in legislation and repeated time and time again. It had all-party support in 2006.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

In debates in Westminster Hall and in this Chamber, Member after Member has raised the issue of the rise in hate crime against people with disabilities. They have cautioned Conservative Members and others about the language that they use and about their actions. This proposal sends out a message that the Government are not interested in this matter, and it undermines the very organisation that has the statutory responsibility. We are not the only ones who are anxious about this. The Government’s consultation shows that the proposal was opposed by 7:1.

On section 12, the Government seek to reduce the frequency of monitoring progress from three years to five years. It is extraordinary that in the debate on the introduction of the monitoring process, it was Conservative Members who argued that three years was not enough, because there would be only one report every Parliament. Now it is to be every five years. That was opposed by 5:1. It is argued that further reports can be brought forward at the commission’s will, but the most important thing is the requirement that the House places on the organisation. The monitoring process every five years will prove totally ineffective.

The repeal of section 27 and the powers to provide conciliation services to resolve disputes involving alleged discrimination is extraordinary. In other parts of the Bill the Government promote conciliation to resolve disputes, yet in this area we are removing that role from the commission. The argument is that the commission has not been particularly effective. If we are concerned about the effective operation of the commission, we should reform the commission, not undermine its legislative base and remove its powers. If the pre-appointment hearing for the new head is today, we should give that person a chance to reform the organisation before we take away the opportunities to exercise effectively the powers that were bestowed upon it by previous legislation.

I will deal with new clause 13 and the abolition of the questionnaire only quickly, because, like my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State, I have dealt with these questionnaires from a trade union point of view. As has been said, only 2% of employers have ever been involved and none has claimed the duty was onerous. To be frank, when the questionnaires come back a trade union representative can tell his member, “This isn’t a runner,” or he can say, “This is a runner. We had better start negotiating.” When it can be proved that a case has merit, usually the employer will realise that there is something real to address.

[Jack Dromey]

Again, from my experience in the trade union movement I support what my hon. Friend says. As a result of the process of using the questionnaire, for every one case that goes forward, three cases do not, precisely because it is established that there is no case to pursue. That means that the hopes of individuals are not raised, but neither is any unnecessary burden imposed, in this case on employers.

[John McDonnell]

Exactly. Part of the role of a trade union representative is to ask the individual, “Do you really want to put yourself through this when there is so little chance of success bearing in mind what information has come back?”

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green]

I cannot begin to say why the Government want to weaken the equalities infrastructure. I cannot work out whether it is because of ideology; whether they genuinely believe that there is a business case for it, although they have not managed to demonstrate that clearly this afternoon; or whether there are pressures on them to be seen to be passing legislation in this field because there is not much else for the House to do. I regret that the fact that the Government have put this particular structure into this position, because that says something very profound about what is valuable and important in our society. I am very disappointed that the Government and this Minister are bringing these provisions forward this afternoon.

[Jack Dromey]

In the Bill, the Government pray in aid enterprise to deny equality. Does my hon. Friend agree with the automotive and engineering personnel managers whom I met in Birmingham, who said that the work of the commission had been invaluable in getting the best out of their work force and that they wanted to get the best out of the work force of the city? As one of them said, enterprise and equality are not opposites; they are partners.

[Kate Green]

Absolutely. That is also true in the public sector. In my constituency, a major public sector institution is even now working with the Equality and Human Rights Commission to marry up its human resources practices and its service delivery. That demonstrates exactly the kind of strong institutional body that we want and that we ought to be protecting and promoting today.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington mentioned the concerns that Opposition Members have about the framework agreement that covers the operation of the commission, its relationship with Government and, crucially, its independence. There are worries that the combination of the changes to the framework agreement and the fact that it will report only every five years, as opposed to every three years, as now, will seriously weaken its independence and the balance between the independent commission and the Government Equalities Office, which I think is still within the Home Office, although I am happy to be corrected by the Minister if it has moved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Swinson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification, but given that I speak on behalf of the Government, it is only fair that I point out that many of my Conservative colleagues also share his concerns. Very often, on the issue of people with disabilities who require support, the reporting in some sections of the media leaves a lot to be desired.

[Jack Dromey]

Were the disability organisations right or wrong in their recent powerful report making a direct link between the tone set by the Government and the rise in hate crime?

[Jo Swinson]

Every organisation is entitled to put forward its views and concerns. It is important that language is used carefully, as has been pointed out by various Members. Whether they are a member of the Government or not, everyone needs to be careful about the language they use in these discussions. That is not to say, of course, that we should never make any changes to provisions affecting people with disabilities, but that debate should be conducted responsibly.

The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) was rather dismissive of many of the Government’s measures on equalities, and said that there was much consensus in these areas. These are measures that the previous Labour Government did not undertake during their 13 years in power, so if there is such consensus, the question needs to be asked, “Why didn’t they get on with it?”

Oral Answers to Questions

Jack Dromey Excerpts

Thursday 9th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davey]

I agree with my hon. Friend. We have written to other Departments that are going to work with us on this. It is very important that it is a cross-Whitehall review, and it will last the whole Parliament long because we are determined to make a real difference.

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

On a day when BMW announces £500 million of investment in Britain, safeguarding 6,000 jobs—the result of co-operation between the union Unite and a world-class company—is it not time for the Secretary of State to stand up to his backwoodsman Back Benchers, who would seek to demonise workers, and instead to celebrate modern trade unionism as a force for good?

[Mr Davey]

I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to press reports of the speech by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the GMB. I am afraid that if he reads that speech he will see that my right hon. Friend repeated the Government’s line, which has been the case since we were elected, that we wish to engage positively with trade unions. That engagement is paying dividends.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Willetts]

Let us be clear: the previous Government were planning cuts in higher education support. Under our plans, there will be extra cash going into universities by the end of the public spending period, compared with the amount going in now, and it will be going into the universities based on the choices of students and the courses that they wish to study. That is the right way for money to reach the universities. The hon. Gentleman should recognise the importance of a vision of universities that provides extra cash and respects student choice and the autonomy of the universities.

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

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)]

My Department has a key role in supporting the rebalancing of the economy and business to deliver growth while increasing skills and learning.

[Jack Dromey]

The Government are forcing Advantage West Midlands to engage in a fire sale of £108 million-worth of assets. They are blocking councils from gaining those assets and barring local enterprise partnerships from retaining them, yet they have seen fit to gift Boris Johnson with London Development Agency assets. Why can they not do the same for high-need, high-unemployment Birmingham?

[Vince Cable]

There is no fire sale of regional development agency assets. There was always a process of disposal of those assets by the RDAs themselves, and roughly 20% of their assets are likely to be sold. The others are being passed on through the different channels, which the hon. Gentleman knows about.