Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 30th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Her point links to what I was trying to express earlier: the Government fail to recognise that every time they suggest in some way that our paramedics, nurses and other key workers do not provide a minimum service and do not take seriously the impact of challenging in the way they have been forced to. They protect the very people they are there to support. The Government have misjudged how people feel about that, because not only have they caused offence to those workers who protect us day in, day out, but they have failed to recognise that every single one of our key workers who does that has friends and family who know that they do that. This is why the public get very upset with the Government when they suggest that somehow our paramedics, nurses and other key workers do not provide those standards. I agree with my hon. Friend: if the Government were able to get out more and see what happens on the ground, they would have a clearer understanding of why this legislation will not work and fix the problems. The public understand that and the Minister should take note.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

If we walk through this legislation and its eventual implementation, we see that it will result in either a worker being sacked or a worker being sacked and a trade union being fined. Can my right hon. Friend think of anything that could greater exacerbate the current industrial-relations climate than those sorts of threats?

[Angela Rayner]

I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. That is exactly what this Government are walking into and I think it will exacerbate the situation. The Government have been exacerbating the situation not just by bringing forward this legislation—most of the public can see what they are trying to do—but through the tone with which they have carried out, or failed to carry out, negotiations to avert the industrial action we have seen. Nurses are taking industrial action for the first time ever. Rather than get round the table and sort the mess out that they have created after 13 years in government, the Government try to demonise those very workers. The public do not thank them for that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner). I am a supporter of the Bill. I think it is a good and proportionate Bill, but it is badly written. What the right hon. Lady said about Henry VIII clauses is absolutely spot on. Indeed, should the socialists ever be in government in the future I hope they will remember what she said, because skeleton Bills and Henry VIII clauses are bad parliamentary and constitutional practice.

It seems to me that it is hard to describe the right hon. Lady as having been wrong for tabling amendment 101— I will not vote for her, but I say none the less that she is far from being described as wrong. Clause 3 suggests:

“Regulations under this section may amend, repeal or revoke provision made by or under primary legislation passed…later in the same session of Parliament as this Act.”

On what basis can any Government claim to have the power to amend legislation that has not yet been passed? The only argument for doing so, which no Government would wish to advance, is incompetence. The only way to pass a subsequent Act without amending it before it is passed is if we have not noticed what it was saying in the first place, and I cannot understand why a Government would wish to put such a measure in a Bill. Indeed, I am puzzled as to how clause 3 managed to get through the intergovernmental procedures that take place before legislation is presented to the House. I do not understand how the Parliamentary Business and Legislation Committee managed to approve a Bill with such a wide-ranging Henry VIII clause and which fails to set out in detail what powers the Government actually want.

I will support the Bill because its aim is worthy, but the means of achieving that aim are not properly constitutional. Henry VIII powers, it has been established, should be used exceptionally or when there is no other alternative. During the passage of the Coronavirus Act 2020 it was perfectly reasonable to have Henry VIII powers. Why? Because the Act was brought forward extremely quickly, there was little time to revise it and there was not an enormous amount of time to work out precisely what revisions to existing statute law may be needed. Emergency legislation falls into that category. But this is not emergency legislation; this is a Bill that we in the Conservative party have been cogitating about since at least our last manifesto, if not back to about 2016. I have supported it all the way through. I wanted the Bill to come forward. I think it is the right thing to be doing, but there is no excuse for failing to do it properly.

[John McDonnell]

I think the Conservative party has been contemplating this since the Combination Acts of the 18th century. Anyway, strange alliances have been formed over the years on this issue. If the right hon. Gentleman recalls, an alliance was formed over the Civil Contingencies Bill, and we had a concession from the Government on some of the legislation regarding at least a super-affirmative mechanism that would give the House a bit more influence to amend statutory instruments. Would he be in favour of that?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am slightly more ambitious than the right hon. Gentleman, because I think that, in and of itself, clause 3—I hope Opposition Members will take note of this—is an argument for the existence of the House of Lords. I hope that their lordships will look at the clause and say, “That is simply not something we can pass into law as it is currently phrased.” The Government must accept amendments, and I hope their lordships will vote through amendments that clarify and set out in detail the powers that are desired.

Other than urgency, there are only two reasons for bringing forward extensive Henry VIII powers. One is that the issue is too complicated to determine. That is problematic, because if it is too complicated to determine for primary legislation, how can it be sufficiently set out in secondary legislation? That probably means that the secondary legislation in and of itself will not be well formed. This is where the Government’s interest—the Executive interest—and the legislature’s interest combine, because if the House passes good, well-constructed legislation, it is much less susceptible to judicial review. There is a Treasury Bench interest in good, well-crafted legislation, which, as I have been saying, this Bill is not. That is why the Government should be keen that the House of Lords, in the time available and with the help, I hope, of parliamentary counsel, will be able to specify the powers more closely.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The Bill is, as I said, a particularly extreme example of bad practice with the least possible excuse for it. There are many Bills where we can find some reason why it had to be done in such a way. I sat on Committees looking at Henry VIII powers and trying to stop them, and I often found that, actually, they were needed because that was the only way of doing things. I make no apology for the Energy Prices Act 2022. That was emergency legislation, and it contained lots of powers because energy prices had got so high that something had to be done straight away to save people from financial distress. That was a reasonable balance between the Executive and the legislature, but this Bill is not urgent legislation.

My fear is that, by writing poor legislation, we invite the courts to intervene more. I do not like the fact that, over recent decades, the courts have intervened more in our legislative processes. That undermines the democratic remit that we have to make the laws. However, if that is handed over to secondary legislation, of course the courts will intervene because the level of scrutiny of secondary legislation is so much lower and there is little other protection. So if we take away scrutiny from this House, where else will it go? Then we get judicial review, and then the Executive finds that it cannot carry out its plans for government, so it becomes self-defeating.

[John McDonnell]

I understand and completely follow the logic of the right hon. Gentleman’s argument. I agree with it. However, he is shirking the responsibility of this House by simply passing it to the Lords. In recent months, we have seen the Government withdraw a Bill for further consideration until they got it right. Surely that is the mechanism to get the Bill right; otherwise, we are shirking our responsibility.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, but I think that he attributes to me more influence than I have. My fusillade against clause 3 will not change many votes this evening—including my own, as it happens. Therefore, it will not be the case that the Government will be defeated in the Committee. I think that I went quite a long way in saying that the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne was not wrong on amendment 101; I thought that was pretty generous. However, the right hon. Gentleman is a hard man—he is known as a hard man of the left, and he is a hard man of parliamentary procedure as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. This is about targeting people. People will be selected for treatment under these work notices, and trade unionists will be singularly picked out to add to the humiliation and distress. It is a dreadful tactic.

[John McDonnell]

The practical reality is that for some workers this takes away the whole right to strike. An example in my constituency is air traffic control. There is no such thing as a minimum service guarantee in air traffic control, and the same can be said for rail signalmen. This process will extend the denial of the right to strike to whole batches of workers, and we need to acknowledge that in this debate.

[Andy McDonald]

My right hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. There are workers who are going to be denied that fundamental right to withdraw their labour, and that is a step that should be taken with a great sense of foreboding and concern.

The Bill could also lead to bankruptcy for trade unions as they become exposed to lawsuits that could wipe them out. Notably, there is no minimum service required of the Government in the Bill. If workers are required to provide minimum service levels on strike days, why is there no such requirement for the Government and outsourced private providers on non-strike days? As we have seen in the course of these disputes, workers and unions are well aware of their legal and moral obligations, but this Government’s cynicism stinks. They are more than happy to sit on their hands when there are more than 500 excess deaths a month in our NHS, but they are suddenly sparked into action over concerns about public safety when strikes occur. If they were genuine in their concerns they would give those workers a proper pay award, but instead their real determination is to strip away their rights.

Patients are not dying because nurses are striking. As the RCN says so eloquently:

“Nurses are striking because patients are dying.”

Under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, it is already unlawful to take industrial action in the knowledge or belief that human life could be endangered or “serious bodily injury” caused as a consequence. In short, life and limb cover is always maintained. I know that the Conservatives are itching to sack nurses, but the RCN handbook sets out in great detail how those nurses will provide “life and limb” cover—the very task that they have undertaken on our behalf before and during covid and will continue to undertake for as long as they have the energy to do so.

The reality is that if this Bill is passed, public services will get even worse. It has long been established that the right to withdraw one’s labour is a fundamental liberty, and it is trade unions who won us the basic rights of annual leave, sick pay, the two-day weekend, the eight-hour day, health and safety protections at work and much more. We need strong trade unions, not only as a right in themselves but to protect the rights we already have and to fight for more. By attacking the right to strike, and by extension the trade union movement, the Government put all this at risk and there will be even more disruption.

The only Government internal impact assessment found that imposing minimum service levels could lead to an increased frequency of strikes. The Transport Secretary admits the new laws will not work and the Education Secretary does not want them. Inside Government there is a recognition that public services will be the likely casualty of an ideologically motivated attack on the right to strike. Much has been said by Conservative Members and by the Secretary of State in particular about their sudden love affair with the International Labour Organisation, praying in aid the ILO’s approach to minimum service levels, but what the Government conveniently omit to mention is that convention 87 of the ILO sets out the criteria that this Government want to ignore. It stresses that the introduction of a negotiated minimum service as a possible alternative to the total prohibition of strikes should be contemplated only when the interruption of services would endanger life or the personal safety of the whole or part of the population.

The Government have also omitted to say that in other jurisdictions and economies there is much greater collective bargaining by trade unions for better terms and conditions for their members. The comparison with the UK is ludicrous. The ILO says that a minimum service should be a genuine and exclusively minimum service—which this Bill does not prescribe—and that unions should be able to participate in defining such a service. As the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) has said, disputes should be resolved not by the Government but by a joint or independent body that has the confidence of the parties. There are examples, not only across Europe but across the world, where such practices obtain, but the Bill is as silent about them as it is about any sensible and proper safeguards, leaving the law by diktat entirely to the wide Henry VIII powers vested in the Secretary of State.

It therefore makes sense—as envisaged by amendments 83 and 84, which I commend to the House—to engage the CBI and the TUC in these matters and to pursue resolution disputes through ACAS if it comes to that. In any event, the High Court certification set out in new clause 1 is necessary to ensure that this country meets its full obligations, in respect not only of convention 87 of the ILO but of the obligations set out in the European social charter of 1961 and under the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement. We are parties to all these treaties and we need to make sure that we abide by them. New clause 1 addresses that. As it stands, we have not seen any risk assessment testing those obligations. Professor Keith Ewing told us in the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee that

“we cannot remove the EU social rights inheritance, because of article 387, where the removal is motivated by trade and investment, which seems to be the motivation here.”

He went on to say:

“Brexit does not mean release from international obligations or even from our continuing obligation to comply with European law.”

In 13 years of Tory rule, numerous pieces of anti-trade union legislation have been passed. The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill is only the latest attempt to neuter the power of workers, and there is no reason to assume that it will stop there. This dreadful, ideologically insane Government are thankfully on their last legs, but in the time they have left, they are clearly determined to continue their attack on the rights of workers and the services they work in. It will be another sad day for this country if the Bill passes its Third Reading tonight, but the Government should be in no doubt that, in doing this, they will be hammering another nail into their own coffin.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery]

I rise to speak to amendments 78, 95 and 96 in my name, which focus on the instruction of people to work that is encompassed in a work notice. Amendment 78 refers to the removal of the protection for those refusing to work on strike days, and amendments 95 and 96 would ensure that people receive a copy of the work notice and other related details.

I will focus on the legislation. This is a sackers charter that is about destroying the very fabric of the trade union movement. People say that the devil is in the detail, and it certainly is when we read this Bill. When the Minister comes to the Dispatch Box, I ask him to confirm, for everybody concerned, whether an individual who is instructed by a work notice that they must go to work on a strike day, but then refuses, will not be sacked. I have a lot of time for the Minister—in fact, I am nearly calling him an hon. Friend—

[John McDonnell]

Steady!

[Ian Lavery]

I hear my right hon. Friend say, “Steady!”, but I want the Minister to confirm that, because that simple question has been asked by many hon. Members tonight and he shook his head on every occasion. Simply, for the sake of individuals who are instructed by a work notice to cross the picket line, will they not be sacked? Never mind the situation whereby their protection under the unfair dismissal regulations will be withdrawn—what does that mean? If that is withdrawn, it means that they will be sacked. That is exactly what it means—we do not need to be employment lawyers to recognise that.

The Bill is also about attacking individual members in the workplace, particularly trade union representatives. If there is going to be a strike in a workplace, perhaps about health and safety, and the trade union representative is advocating strike action because that is what they are elected to do, but the boss—the gaffer—gives them a work notice and says, “You’re the person who’s got to cross the picket line,” how does that work? In the main, we have fair bosses and bad bosses, and bad bosses will pick out people they can get rid of as quickly as possible. A trade union rep advocating action on a health and safety issue could be dismissed, because the protection is gone for someone who refuses to cross the picket line and go into work. Even Conservative Members understand that that is not fair in any way, shape or form. How can it be? Individuals have the right, regardless of work notices, to withdraw their labour. It is a basic human right. Here we have legislation that not many people—even in this place—want; it is a knee-jerk reaction. It is what happens when the Conservative party is cornered and is 25 points behind in the polls. What can unify them? I will tell you what unifies the Tory party: attacking the trade unions. That gets them speaking. That is the true red meat of unifying Tory politics. But tonight there have not been many speakers from the Conservative Benches.

An accusation has been made that trade union members are not ordinary people, but they could not be more ordinary if they tried. They are the fire and rescue service people who run towards fires and towards those in desperate need of being rescued; as we have seen, sadly, a member of the Scottish Fire & Rescue Service has just lost their life. These are ordinary people. Nurses are ordinary people saving lives on a daily basis. Transport workers kept the country running before the pandemic, during the pandemic and after it.

The work notice is a bosses’ charter. I have spoken about the duty of care of an employer to an employee. What happens if someone, despite campaigning for action, is told by their employer that they must go to work? What will be the impact on that individual’s wellbeing? What impact will it have on mental health in the workplace when people are compelled to work? It is not short of a form of industrial slavery to compel people to go to work against their wishes.

It is not the same in Italy. It is not the same in Germany. It is not the same in France. It is different. Stop arguing the cheat, because it is completely different, and that has been highlighted by speaker after speaker, particularly with regard to the difference in collective bargaining and sectoral collective bargaining. There has not been an impact assessment or any consultation with the trade unions or those who will be involved. This is simply Government diktat. It is draconian, authoritarian legislation that is unfit for purpose. It is unfair, undemocratic, unworkable and unsafe. It is unfit for purpose. I am proud to be voting against it tonight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a proud trade union member. I rise to support the amendments in the names of my hon. Friends and myself and those of the official Opposition.

There has been much discussion today about whether the Bill has been badly or incompetently drafted, but we should not be taken in by that diversion. This is a Bill that is drafted very specifically to achieve a very specific aim: to extinguish the right to strike and to stop key workers from speaking out.

Trade unions have been given no opportunity to feed into any pre-legislative scrutiny. There has been no consultation with any of the impacted sectors and no impact assessments have been published, as highlighted by the Regulatory Policy Committee, and it is no wonder. The Bill will undoubtedly breach the Human Rights Act, the European convention on human rights, International Labour Organisation conventions and various other statutes. It gives the Secretary of State sweeping authoritarian powers to set minimum service levels by regulation in six sectors, the contours of which are undefined, and it grants the Secretary of State sweeping authoritarian powers to amend, repeal or revoke provisions in primary legislation, including Acts of the Senedd and the Scottish Parliament, as we have heard today. Worse still, it strips away employment rights. Any worker identified in a work notice who refuses to work as directed will be without unfair dismissal protections, meaning they can be sacked immediately, without notice. But it does not stop there. The Bill also says that the relevant trade union must “take reasonable steps” to ensure that its members comply, but, again, “reasonable steps” are not defined; they are at the whim of the Secretary of State.

Staggeringly, the consequence of not taking those undefined reasonable steps is that the strike would be unlawful and unofficial and all workers taking strike action would be without unfair dismissal protection and could all be sacked at the whim of the Secretary of State.

[John McDonnell]

When we legislate in Parliament, we do not legislate for the good; we legislate for the bad. We have to interpret how this legislation could be used by a bad employer, and one way it could be used by bad employers is specifying individual workers who we know are trade union activists to be forced to break the strike. The Government will say that there is a responsibility and that the employer had no regard to whether someone was a union member. We had 20 years of blacklisting taking place with Governments refusing to acknowledge it. We know what bad employers will do: they will target trade unionists and ensure they are sacked, and when the union defends the trade unionists, they will come for the trade union itself.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

My right hon. Friend is 100% right. The problem with blacklisting was that it was done very much under the radar; we had Government institutions going behind legislation. This piece of legislation, however, would unashamedly carry out similar practices in broad daylight, with the full sanction of the Secretary of State and his Prime Minister.

This is an authoritarian and undemocratic Bill. The proposed amendments that I am supporting today are therefore designed simply to enhance parliamentary scrutiny, to constrain the unreasonable powers of the Secretary of State and to protect workers and trade unions, in particular by making co-operation with work notices voluntary on the part of employees, by providing that a failure to comply with the work notice will not mean a breach of contract or provide grounds for dismissal or detriment, and by limiting the reasonable steps that a trade union must take.

This despotic Bill not only represents a fundamental attack on workers’ rights, but dangerously divides a nation, demoralising and threatening to sack the very workforce who have tried to hold our country together over the last two difficult years. These amendments are the bare minimum necessary to take the dangerous edges off this very dangerous piece of legislation—but, frankly, this piece of legislation needs to be thrown in the bin.

--- Later in debate ---

Nothing in this Bill as it stands requires so-called minimum service levels to be realistic, let alone appropriate, and nothing in it ensures that those levels do not exceed actual day-to-day levels of work on non-strike days. That has to change. That is why amendments 94 and 39 are needed. There is nothing to prevent the Government and employers from using the Bill to prevent union officials from effectively representing their members during disputes or to stop the Government from bankrupting unions by requiring them to police their members on behalf of the employers exploiting them, imposing financial penalties for the slightest failure.

[John McDonnell]

Many have commented on the almost ludicrous nature of how we are legislating today. We are about to legislate to penalise a union for not taking reasonable steps to ensure it instructs its members to break a strike, yet we do not know those sanctions, or what “reasonable steps” are. We do not know what the implications are for the union itself, yet we are legislating tonight to give a free hand to the Minister. That cannot be right in any democratic forum.

[Claudia Webbe]

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point, to which I hope the Government are listening. The Bill is manifestly unjust and must not become law. That is why amendments 93 and 92 are needed. The Government are not just showing their contempt for the UK’s legal and democratic principles with this Bill. As it stands, the Secretary of State can ignore the UK’s international legal and treaty obligations on the treatment of workers and allow the sacking of workers simply for exercising their internationally recognised right to withdraw their labour, with nothing to protect certain workers and union officials from being targeted by bad bosses. Time and again, this Government bring forward legislation without an impact assessment. Where is the impact assessment? Where is the equality impact assessment? That is why new clause 1 and amendments 4, 83 and 84 are needed.

The harm this Bill does to the rights of our people is obvious, but it also does huge harm to the UK’s international standing, making this country yet again an outlier among so-called developed nations in its readiness to disregard international law and agreements. The Bill is clearly unfit and is designed to break the will of the unions and demoralise workers. These amendments and new clauses will not actually make the Bill fit, but the proposed changes will at least mitigate some of the dangers it evidently poses. I urge the Committee to support them.

As workers rise in opposition to this Bill, to defend their rights and to say enough is enough, and as industrial action increases as a direct result of this Bill, I urge all hon. and right hon. Members to do the decent thing and to stand with them not only here in Parliament, but on the picket line. On 1 February, I will be standing with workers in Leicester who are rightly exercising their democratic right to strike for fair pay, terms and conditions. I ask Members to support the amendments and to scrap this Bill for good.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am very happy to write to the hon. Gentleman to confirm that point, but we absolutely believe that this legislation is lawful and compatible with human rights legislation and international obligations.

My right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) made a typically insightful and thoughtful speech that no doubt provoked thinking on both sides of the Committee. He talked about the Henry VIII powers in the legislation, but I reassure him that they are restricted only to genuinely consequential amendments. I do not believe they are as wide ranging as he set out.

My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) was absolutely right—this was also reflected in the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth)—that we are not anti-union, but we are pro-protecting the public.

[John McDonnell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I will make some progress, if I can. I may come back to the right hon. Gentleman in a moment.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury speaks with great authority on these matters and, as I said, pointed out clearly that the ILO says that as a general principle MSLs are not restricted to essential services, as some Members have claimed, and can cover other elements such as education and railway workers. She also said quite rightly that from their speeches the Opposition seem to want the country to grind to a halt.

[John McDonnell]

It is irresponsible for a Minister to come to this House, when there is a clear conflict in the law that needs to be interpreted, without that interpretation and just to say that he is going to write to us. That is irresponsible. Will he now define to us what reasonable steps he expects a union to take to comply with the legislation as it is and to instruct its members to go to work during a strike? What are those reasonable steps?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That would be for a court to decide—[Hon. Members: “Oh!”] Of course it would be for a court to decide, because the only action that can be taken against a union can be by the employer in the courts. A union would then define what the reasonable steps would be. I will move on.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

Briefly—I do not want to delay the House—I say to the Government that bringing forward this legislation during the current industrial relations climate demonstrates a lack of appreciation on their side for the strength of feeling of the nearly 1 million people who are taking industrial action and the millions who support them. The Bill is provocative: it will ensure that the current disputes are more bitter and last longer, and it will inspire other disputes. I hope that the other place brings forward amendments that will ameliorate it, but I warn the Government that, when the first trade unionist is sacked or fined, they will regret the reaction from the trade union movement, because it will damage our economy and our society as a result of their irresponsible and provocative actions tonight.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 18th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders]

My hon. Friend is right that we must answer to our constituents about what is going to happen with these rules. That is why we have tabled our amendments.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

There is a huge point of principle here, but there are also issues around pragmatic logistics. I can understand some of the frustrations of Conservative Members about delays in implementation since the referendum, but I must remind them that they have been in Government. Privately, I know of no civil servant who has any confidence that the deadline will be met. We now face a strike by 100,000 civil servants. Even the FDA has gone for strike action. The world may have changed since this legislation was first prepared. May I suggest to my Front-Bench colleagues that we assure the Government that there will be an open door for discussion throughout this process when they want to talk about extending the deadline to ensure proper scrutiny of this legislation? I fear that the parliamentary process will break down, poor decisions will be made and we will overburden an administration that already has enough on its plate.

[Justin Madders]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. The deadline was pretty risky to start with, but it now looks completely foolish. That is why we will be moving an amendment later to make sure the deadline is put back three years, to give us confidence that things will be done properly.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 16th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a proud union member.

The Bill is an affront to Parliament. It will not protect the public, it will worsen industrial relations and it will undermine the unity of the United Kingdom. It should be voted down tonight. There has been much heated argument about the provisions in the Bill. On all the moral and pragmatic arguments, I stand firmly on the side of working people and their right to withdraw their labour, and against what the Government seek to do in the Bill. However, I do not consider that those moral and pragmatic arguments are likely to change the minds—or more importantly the votes—of Conservative Members. I therefore want to put forward an argument against the Bill that I believe they both can and should accept: it is damaging to our constitution and to the Union.

The reason the Bill is so short is that it delegates to the Secretary of State the power to set out all the relevant law in regulations through statutory instruments—regulations which receive only the most minimal scrutiny in this place and cannot be amended. So it is the Secretary of State, not Parliament, who will make regulations to determine the levels of service in relation to strikes, who gets to define the nature of the services to be provided, the number of people who are to provide them, the time at which they are to be provided and the manner in which they are to be provided during a strike. Extraordinarily, the Bill also proposes that the Secretary of State should have the power by regulation to

“amend, repeal or revoke provision made by or under primary legislation”

in this House. So statutes passed by Parliament can be amended by regulations drafted by the Minister without full parliamentary scrutiny. In a recent report by a Committee of the House of Lords, “Democracy Denied?”, their lordships state:

“A substantial groundswell of concern is developing about the shift in power from Parliament to ministers.”

This Bill is perhaps the most egregious example yet of a measure brought forward by an increasingly autocratic Executive to strip Parliament of its role in determining what, for many of us, is a critical area of employment and human rights.

It gets worse. The primary legislation that the Secretary of State can amend or repeal is defined to include an Act of the Senedd or the Scottish Parliament. That should set alarm bells ringing for all of us, nationalists and Unionists alike. What is being proposed is that the Secretary of State in Westminster should have the power by regulation to override devolved legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament and the Senedd—and to do so with minimal scrutiny in this House. If the Executive had intended to provoke constitutional outrage and call into question the very basis of the devolutionary settlements, they could not have designed a piece of legislation better guaranteed to do so.

That the Secretary of State in Whitehall should claim the power to legislate by regulation to interfere in devolved areas of government and to impose restrictions in different parts of this Union on the right to strike in transport, education, health and other public services in Scotland and Wales is more than unwarranted. It is more than inappropriate. It is a deliberate provocation and offence.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Would my hon. Friend like to comment on why the Government have refused even to agree to the super-affirmative procedure?

[Barry Gardiner]

That is quite simply because they are introducing a party political measure that is designed to provoke this House.

I call on all Conservative Members, if they care about the Union at all, to vote against this wrecking ball of a Bill, which will only provide succour to those voices seeking to destroy our constitutional settlement and our United Kingdom. Under the Bill, the employer has the unilateral right to identify in a work notice the individual workers required to operate the MSL. A worker who refuses to comply after having been requisitioned in this way will lose unfair dismissal protection.

The Government are thus authorising employers to do what not even a court in this country can do. Under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992:

“No court shall…compel an employee to do any work or attend at any place for the doing of any work.”

However, once the union is notified of the identity of the workers to be requisitioned, the Bill requires the union to take “reasonable steps” to ensure that all its members identified in the work notice comply with it. It is ironic that, under the Bill, the same trade union may be required to discipline or expel—

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I would be worried if I did not—that would show that my constituency Labour party fundraising strategy had failed.

It is important that the Conservatives know this. We know what the motivation for the Bill is. Do not insult the intelligence of this House or the British people by saying that it has anything whatsoever to do with emergency measures. We have all negotiated those over the years—they have been in existence for decades, since the beginning of the trade union movement.

The motivations are these. First, the Bill is an attempt to try to threaten those in negotiations at the moment. Well, that has really worked: today, nine out of 10 teachers voted for industrial action. The second was the usual distraction. In the past, when Tory Governments were failing, they would usually create a war and send a gunboat. Mrs Thatcher then decided that the real enemy was within. We have heard that same language today of trade union “barons” holding the country to ransom—all of that. That is distraction. The real motivation is the one that they have had since the 1980s, which is to shift the balance of power from labour to capital and from workers to employers. That strategy has worked. It has worked so well that it has impoverished working-class people, and that is why they are coming out on strike. They cannot survive on the wages that they have got.

Labour Members will oppose the Bill in this House. There will be opposition in the other place as well. Labour will scrap the Bill as soon as we get into power. But I warn the Conservatives of this. The real opposition will not come in here; it will be out there. It will be from working people—trade unionists. When the first trade unionist is sacked and the first trade union is fined, the Government will foul the industrial relations of the country for a generation, and the people will be out there. I will be out there with them.

Draft Subsidy Control (Subsidies and Schemes of Interest or Particular Interest) Regulations 2022

John McDonnell Excerpts

Monday 14th November 2022 General Committees

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

These Committees might not be the most exciting part of parliamentary life, but we should try to at least understand what we are dealing with. I have found my way around the SOI and the SOPI and the SAU part of the CMA, but what defines a “sensitive sector”? It does not seem to be laid out anywhere, as far as I can see.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That is a very good question. I was just getting on to that. Sensitive sectors are areas of economic activity in which there is a record of international trade policy disputes, evidence of global overcapacity within the sector or evidence that one or both of these features will apply to the sector in future.

If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the last part of the regulations, he will see that it lists the sectors that would be defined as sensitive, and those include automotive, steel and other sectors. Subsidies in those sectors have greater potential for substantial distortion, even at lower values. That is why those sectors are subject to a lower monetary threshold, of £5 million, to be defined as a subsidy of particular interest. The Government have set out a list of these sectors in the regulations.

The monetary thresholds are cumulative. As such, a subsidy of £5 million may be above the threshold for a subsidy of particular interest if the recipient had already received a related £6 million subsidy within the last three financial years. This avoids public authorities salami-slicing subsidies to avoid scrutiny. In addition, the regulations set out a minimum value for referral of £1 million. That means that where related subsidies cumulate above the £10 million threshold for subsidies of particular interest, public authorities will have to refer only the most recent subsidy if it exceeds £1 million.

The second element of the criteria is specific categories of subsidy. Subsidies designed to rescue an ailing or insolvent enterprise are subsidies of interest, and restructuring subsidies are subsidies of particular interest. That reflects the fact that both rescue and restructuring subsidies have greater potential to cause undue distortion, but rescue subsidies are often time-critical, since the enterprise may need the subsidy urgently if it is not to go out of business. The final specific category of subsidies is those that are explicitly conditional on relocation. Such subsidies are prohibited entirely, unless they have a beneficial effect on economic or social disadvantage in the UK as a whole. Subsidies in that category are subsidies of interest if they are £1 million or below, and subsidies of particular interest if above that value.

The regulations also apply to subsidy schemes. A subsidy scheme will set out the parameters under which subsidies may be given. The assessment of compliance with the subsidy control requirements will be carried out for the whole scheme, rather than for each subsidy given under that scheme. As such, if a subsidy of particular interest can be awarded under a scheme, that scheme is a scheme of particular interest and is subject to the referral procedures. The same applies to subsidies and schemes of interest. The referral can occur once, at scheme level. Subsidies given under schemes will never be referred to the SAU.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That is a good question, and I thank my hon. Friend for it. The trade and co-operation agreement includes some oversight; clearly, we made some commitments in that agreement regarding subsidies, which is what the statutory instrument and the previous legislation have both sought to address. However, we believe that the approach we are taking to subsidies is far more effective and quicker to deliver than the European Union one. Under that approach, we would have to take a scheme to the European Union, have it approved and then have it come back, which might take several months. Our approach sets out a broad set of principles: a local authority or central Government can set out a scheme and, as long as it adheres to these principles, the subsidy can be delivered far more quickly. In our view, that is a far more effective process.

Finally, a distinct approach will apply to tax schemes. All tax schemes will be schemes of interest and may be referred to the subsidy advice unit. The cumulation rules will apply differently to subsidies given under tax schemes. Only subsidies given as part of the same tax measure within the last three financial years will count towards the cumulative threshold for subsidies of particular interest.

[John McDonnell]

If I am being dim here, I apologise, but I have gone through the explanatory notes to find out the definition of a sensitive area, and it is not there. The schedule to the regulations contains a table showing the various industries—copper, aluminium and so on— but regulation 6 does not explain how a sector becomes defined as sensitive. The Minister can write to me on this question if an explanation is not forthcoming, but I am curious how that list was compiled. Does it come from the primary legislation? I could not find a definition there either. For example, aviation is referred to separately in the main body of the legislation, but that might well be defined as a sensitive area. Obviously, I have a natural interest in this issue.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

It is experiential; it is based on the record of international trade policy disputes and evidence of global overcapacity. Automotive may sit within that.

[John McDonnell]

It’s not defined in the legislation.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That is how they have been defined. I am happy to write to the right hon. Gentleman with further detail.

[John McDonnell]

Simply, the legislation before us does not seem to describe the principles or the process by which a definition can occur. I might have got it completely wrong, but it would be useful to understand that at least.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

It is a fair point. In the interest of time, I will consult on this and write to the right hon. Gentleman.

In conclusion, the regulations set out the definitions and criteria for the categories of subsidies and schemes that will have greater potential to lead to undue distortion and negative effects on competition or investment in the UK or on international trade or investment. These subsidies and schemes will be subject to an additional layer of scrutiny in the form of referral to the subsidy advice unit. That is crucial to the effective functioning of the UK’s new subsidy control regime, which will give public authorities the flexibility and freedom to deliver bespoke subsidies that meet the needs of the UK economy. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank the shadow Minister for her comments, and all Members for their thoughtful contributions. I begin by reminding the House what the regulations aim to do. They set out clear definitions and criteria for two categories of subsidies and schemes that have been identified as having greater potential to lead to distorting effects. These are subsidies and schemes of interest or particular interest.

Public authorities giving or making subsidies or schemes of interest will have the option of referring these to the subsidy advice unit established within the Competition and Markets Authority, while those giving or making subsidies or schemes of particular interest must refer them to the unit. The definitions and criteria set out in the regulations are based on clear monetary thresholds as well as specific categories of subsidy. I am confident that they strike the right balance when it comes to providing protection from undue distortion or negative effects on competition or investment within the UK or international trade or investment, while being administratively simple for public authorities to apply.

I have committed to write to the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington with more detail on the categories of subsidy; the shadow Minister also addressed that in her remarks. She will be aware, having read the consultation, that we consulted in full on the question of sensitive sectors and published accompanying analytical information. The Government’s response to the consultation sets out a rationale for the selection of these particular sectors, but I am very happy to write to her too.

[John McDonnell]

There is a difference between clarity in a consultation paper and clarity in legislation. I would like to hear about the legislation.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 25th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I will speak as a trade unionist, taking up the point made by the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds). From the trade union point of view, I have been inundated with briefings from individual unions, including my own, which is Unison, the TUC, etc. All of them have the wishful hope that any legislation that comes before this House would be about improving standards and moving to the best possible, as he said. Unfortunately, all the briefings I have received are about the risks, rather than the benefits, that accrue from this legislation.

The list is almost endless; other hon. Members have mentioned them, but I will run through a few: risks to the right to paid annual leave, limits to working time, health and safety protections, prevention of less favourable treatment for part-time workers, guarantees and protections for parental leave, TUPE rights, discrimination laws, equal pay and maternity, paternity and adoption protections —it goes on and on. There is fear out there about what this legislation can do.

Many trade unionists voted for Brexit. They will have voted on the basis of the slogan “taking back control”—that is the reality of it—and they will have been convinced by some of the arguments about reasserting national sovereignty and the argument that decisions should be taken by this Parliament rather than the EU. However, I do not by any means think they voted for a massive transfer of powers to Ministers on the scale seen in this legislation.

This Bill asks trade unionists for a leap of faith. It asks them to put trust in Ministers on both the sunset clause, to be able to include continuation of or improvement on all the existing legislation, and the scrutiny process in this legislation, which is largely based on delegated legislation. Even in the best of worlds, particularly when the Government are revoking the Lords’ amendments to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 on the use of the super-affirmative process by which delegated legislation can be amended, that is a leap of faith too far.

That leap of faith relies on trust in a Government and a party that has been attacking trade union rights for 40 years and now seeks to introduce a new wave of anti-trade union legislation to undermine the right to strike itself. It also asks trade unionists to put their confidence in Ministers who in many instances do not survive a fortnight in office, and to put trust in Government and Ministerial decisions in the current industrial climate, with the Government cutting trade unionists’ pay and about to introduce another round of austerity.

In all the briefings I have received, there is a complete lack of trust in the Government’s competence to administer that transfer of legal powers. Mention has been made time and again of the 2,700 individual instruments. I agree with hon. Members who spoke of their lack of confidence in the Government even being able to survey the full range of instruments comprehensively. To put it in context, this is a Government who have announced the cutting of 91,000 civil service jobs in the coming period. It is very difficult to have confidence in the Government administering this whole process when they are decimating the civil service and removing that administrative expertise.

I urge the Government to think again about the detail of this Bill. I will vote against it today, because it is just not viable at the moment. Concern has been expressed on both sides of the House about the unrealistic sunset clause. The hard and fixed deadline of the sunset clause will not work. Even with the elements of flexibility contained in the Bill, it is hard to see how we can give assurance to our constituents that all their individual rights will be protected.

I have mentioned the concern within the trade union movement. I cannot see it having any confidence in this Government meeting those deadlines without some element of either malevolently undermining trade union rights or, following the cock-up theory of history, missing individual pieces of needed legislative reform.

We now need to look clearly at the legislative scrutiny process. I am sure the House of Lords will introduce amendments, as it did on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill in 2018. We want this House to be able to have thorough scrutiny, with not just the ability to reject but the ability to amend and, in answer to the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, the ability to improve legislation through delegated legislation. That means the super-affirmative process included in the EU withdrawal process.

I re-emphasise what others have said: this Bill is transferring from Parliament to Ministers a scale of decision making, authority and sovereignty that we have not seen happen in this country’s peacetime history. This is fundamental to the rights of Parliament. Members on both sides of the House should take it extremely seriously and say to the Executive, “This is too far. You need to think again.”

Employment Agencies and Trade Unions

John McDonnell Excerpts

Monday 11th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

These two small pieces of legislation could have the most serious impact of any we will be considering in this Session. BA has been mentioned. That is in my constituency. Let me explain what happened. When we went into the covid crisis, the airport was shut down. Many workers were asked to remain in post to bring in essential supplies and, as we repatriated people back into this country, two of our immigration officers caught covid and died. Others continued to go into work. When hon. Members went out to applaud key workers on the doorsteps, we went out to applaud our workers at the airport who were putting their lives at risk.

We negotiated a deal. The union accepted that there would have to be some jobs reduced in the short term and wages reduced to ensure that the company survived. That was the negotiation. The assurance given was that, as we became fully operational again, wages would be reinstated. When we became nearly fully operational—at 80%—the company reneged on that commitment for a group of workers. Members can imagine how angry those workers were. They were not asking for a pay rise; they were asking for the 10% cut to be reinstated. That was all. We did the normal thing that we do at the airport: we went into negotiations and we settled the dispute, but there was a threat of industrial action. If that had happened, my whole community would have supported it.

If there had been any hint of bringing in agency workers, not only would that dispute not have been settled, it would have been bitter and long-winded. Members should not think that other workers in the airport, not implicated in that dispute, would have stood on their own. They would not have taken illegal action; it is easy for workers to find a grievance at the airport if they want to. They would have gone through the legal procedures and that airport would have been shut down. Do not tell me that agency staff can fill in for air traffic controllers, firefighters, baggage handlers who have security clearance—it takes months to get that security clearance—immigration officers and others.

This is a serious piece of legislation going through tonight, and it will exacerbate industrial relations across the whole of the country. I say to hon. Members from all parts of the House to be careful what they wish for, and to be careful what they legislate for. I am fearful about what this legislation could do. It is not just the public sector that is affected, but the private sector at Heathrow and elsewhere. Interestingly, with regard to the fines imposed, not a single example could be quoted of where the existing system was not working. In addition, unions are meticulous in the way they go forward on these matters, but where they are not, the injunction route for the employer has worked effectively. At the airport, we had one problem in the cabin crew dispute where the union was unsure who it was balloting, because halfway through some of the staff had been made redundant. An injunction came in, the union started again, the process was legitimised and the dispute took place, and we resolved the dispute through negotiation.

These measures will cause animosity and division, but if that is what this Government are all about, I say, “I think you’ve misjudged the public mood when it comes to support for trade unions in this country at the moment.”

Draft Construction Contracts (England) Exclusion Order 2022

John McDonnell Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2022 General Committees

[Lee Rowley]

The reason the Act was disapplied in 1998 and 2011 was, in effect, the private finance initiative. PFI has a different structure whereby the Government are still involved in contracting out the cost. The order, however, relates to the arrangement between two private parties—the water companies and first-tier building contractors—though admittedly for a piece of infrastructure that will be important to the citizenry of the United Kingdom. It will, however, be a different prospectus. I do not, therefore, think that we can draw conclusions from the previous disapplications. That is why we want to tread carefully, and why Ofwat is keen that we have some early pathfinders, so that we can learn and understand that the proposal works.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I do not want to delay the Committee, but the explanatory memorandum states:

“Public interest in the Exclusion Order is expected to be minimal. There are two projects under active development and a further 18 strategic water resource schemes are being progressed which may meet

DPC eligibility criteria”.

We are, therefore, talking about projects being developed at a significant scale. Following on from the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch about Ofwat and monitoring, do the Government intend to provide the House with regular reports on the schemes? If they are of a significant scale—they may be innovative, but they may also be an unknown quantity—we will want to monitor them more closely.

Secondly, on the consultation, the Minister skated over the issue of the SME response. It would be very useful if he could write to us specifically about the points raised by the SMEs, so that that can be built into further monitoring of the projects.

[Lee Rowley]

I am happy to write with more details on the consultation. Also, my colleague in the other place answered a parliamentary question yesterday and that contains more information, should Members be keen to understand it. As we have indicated, this is a staged process. The purpose is to change the regulations to allow projects to come forward, and then we will need to learn from those projects. There will be much to learn on top of the consultation in the months and years ahead.

On reporting, Ofwat will take a very close view and provide updates. I will, therefore, let Ofwat provide the reporting structures in the way it deems appropriate. On the point about significant scale, the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington is absolutely right to say that the proposal applies to projects of over £100 million. This is not about a few million pounds or a few hundred thousand pounds in individual areas; it is about significant infrastructure changes that should greatly benefit communities over the coming decades.

[John McDonnell]

I will try to make this suggestion in as constructive a way as possible. The Minister’s own involvement with the PAC will have demonstrated to him that Ofwat may not be the most effective means by which to monitor projects of this scale. It might well be that the Government will have a direct role to play alongside Ofwat in informing the House on how the new regulations are being implemented.

[Lee Rowley]

I am happy to consider that separately, and I will also correspond with the right hon. Gentleman on the other point that he has raised.

To conclude, I reiterate that the creation of any exclusion under the construction Act would be the exception, not the rule, and can be justified only in circumstances where the benefits clearly outweigh the costs. We think that that is the case with DPC, and that it has the potential to improve the pipeline of strategic water schemes that come forward, and to do so in a way that will both de-risk the taxpayer and ensure that independent companies and organisations with agency come together to deliver resources from which we will all benefit over the coming decades. I thank everyone for their contributions, and I commend the order to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Employment Rights: Government Plans

John McDonnell Excerpts

Monday 25th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) [V]]

I suggest to the hon. Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) that perhaps she should read some of the Labour party’s policy papers on automation and a range of other subjects.

I was not shocked to learn that the Tories were reviewing trade union rights—it is what Tory Governments do every time they are elected. I was also not surprised that the so-called review of rights is to be undertaken by a body comprising several notorious anti-trade union employers. Nobody can trust this process and nobody can trust the assurances this evening from the Secretary of State, a man who has spent his life threatening trade unions and employment rights.

If any Member believes we have the best employment protections on the globe, as we have heard, I urge them to look at how my constituents who work at Heathrow airport are being treated by their employer, Heathrow Airport Ltd. I remind colleagues that when at the beginning of the pandemic many Members were desperately seeking to have their constituents repatriated, it was my constituents at Heathrow who worked throughout to keep the airport functioning to enable their return. The reward from their employer has been that all 4,000 workers have been fired and hit by forced rehire on vastly inferior contracts, with wages cut by 25%—£8,000—without any chance of protection in law, contrary to what the hon. Member for Newbury said, because the company has ridden a coach and horses through the existing legislation.

While Heathrow management argues in court for a third runway on the grounds that aviation will soon return to normal, elsewhere it is using the pandemic to impose cuts in wages and terms of employment. Unite the union offered a deal that would enable temporary measures to be put in place to save money until the airport returns to normal, but it was rejected by the company. Heathrow Airport Ltd has a record of borrowing to pay massive dividends and high director salaries but paying little in tax, and it is also now using traditional strike-breaking measures.

Industrial action is starting again at Heathrow. Unite members in the Uxbridge constituency have not had a word of support from their local MP, but let me send them my message of support and solidarity. If this Government want to reassure us about their employment credentials, they can confirm tonight that they will legislate to close the loopholes in the existing law with regard to fire and rehire; they can condemn Heathrow Airport Ltd for the treatment of its employees; and, yes, Ministers can join me in sending a message of solidarity to the strikers at Heathrow.

Budget Resolutions

John McDonnell Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

As we face the coronavirus crisis, it is vital that we demonstrate to the people of our country that we are meeting it head-on and that we will defeat it—and we will. As I have said elsewhere, this is no time for partisan political knockabout or, for that matter, publicity stunts. We have lives to save, so we must all work together. We will work with the Government and parties across the House to protect our people and to contribute to the worldwide effort to overcome the outbreak of this virus.

We welcome the Government’s package of measures announced yesterday. We must ensure, though, that alongside the medical and scientific strategy to contain, mitigate and halt the spread of the virus, the economic strategy is equally comprehensive. We agree with the Government that the NHS must receive whatever resources it needs. I pay tribute to and thank our NHS staff, who, as always, are rising to this challenge with their usual professionalism and dedication. We acknowledge that they are doing so at a time when they are already under extreme pressures, but we offer them our thanks.

The other key service that we need to support in this emergency is social care. It is unclear from Government statements so far what additional support is being provided to social care. Social care is already in crisis in this country. Before this virus outbreak, 1.5 million people were not receiving the care they need. There are more than 120,000 staff vacancies, and many of the private providers have been on the financial edge for some time. The majority of those who receive social care are older, disabled and vulnerable people—the very people who are most at risk from coronavirus infection. We have an £8 billion funding gap in social care budgets as the result of 10 years of austerity. Providers and local authorities are already stretched to breaking point in many areas, so we need to know how much additional support is being provided specifically for social care and what contingency plans are in place if individual providers are unable to cope. Like our support with regard to NHS funding, the Government will have our support to bring forward the resources, whatever it takes.

A large section of our care workforce is now under threat from the Government’s recently announced immigration policy. Some Members may have seen the GMB union calculation that the Government’s immigration policy will cost the care sector up to 500,000 staff. Without foreign careworkers, our care system would collapse. The message to the Home Secretary is clear: do not put our social care system at risk. Pragmatism must override ideology and policy at this stage.

Social care in this country largely falls on the shoulders of family members, and in our culture it is still usually the older women in our families. The pension age for many of those women was increased without proper consultation or notification. They were effectively robbed of many years of their pension, and this Government—despite all the Prime Minister’s promises before the election —have refused to compensate them. I met the WASPI women last week, and it is no wonder they are still angry. We may well look at what support can be given to individual carers within families as they cope with this crisis.

If any good is to come out of this developing tragedy, it must be the lessons we learn from it. It is overwhelmingly clear now that no Government can inflict a decade of cuts and austerity on our public services, such as the NHS and care services, without impacting on their resilience in a time of crisis. Ten years of cuts and a failure to invest in services mean that we are extremely ill-prepared for dealing with this type of large-scale health risk to our community.

We know that the NHS is already under pressure—intense pressure—as a result of underfunding and understaffing. Some 17,000 beds have been cut. Bed occupancy levels were at 94% last week, and critical care bed occupancy was at 80%—those are the beds we rely upon in episodes like coronavirus. The NHS is short of 100,000 staff, including more than 40,000 nurses and thousands of doctors. We have to recognise that the NHS needs to be put on a longer-term stable footing, with secure financial backing for the long term. Just as we have over the coronavirus outbreak, we must listen to the clinicians and the experts when it comes to what is needed. It should not take a crisis to secure for the NHS the resources it needs.

I turn to support for individuals and businesses. We welcome many of the Government’s measures set out by the Chancellor yesterday. The Budget stated that statutory sick pay will be paid from the first day of sickness absence and that people will be compensated for self-isolation, but we need more clarity. The Government guidance appears to exclude workers on zero-hours contracts, part-time workers and people earning below the lower earnings limit of £118 per week, saying that they are ineligible for statutory sick pay and are advised to make a claim for universal credit. Can we be absolutely clear who will be covered by statutory sick pay and who will not?

Sick pay is currently set at the low rate of £94.25 a week—that is about £18 a day. Average pre-tax earnings are £511 per week in nominal terms. Without lifting statutory sick pay, the financially secure will err on the side of caution and self-isolate, and all but the most financially secure will be asked to take a significant pay cut in order to self-isolate. That leaves people inevitably choosing between health and hardship.

For those being directed by Government to universal credit, I ask: what, if anything, has been done to reduce the five-week delay in receiving universal credit and to ensure the staffing resources in the Department for Work and Pensions to cope with the volume of demand? The suggestion is that these low-paid workers apply for universal credit, which then becomes a loan. That will push many low-paid workers into debt, which will cause significant hardship for some.

The Chancellor announced yesterday a £500 million fund for councils to administer. Could the Secretary of State clarify how much that means for each local authority and how it will be distributed? Will hard-stretched local authorities receive support for delivering that scheme? Councils are also being asked to administer £2.2 billion of funding to support businesses in meeting their ongoing business costs. Could we be clear about what resourcing councils will be given as they are asked to take on these responsibilities, after 10 years—to be frank, as a result of the cuts that have taken place—of local authorities often being hollowed out of the staffing resources they need?

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is making some powerful points. Does he agree with me that the announcement of the £500 million fund is a recognition, belatedly, by the Government that we do need something to do the job that the social fund, funded by the Government, used to do?

[John McDonnell]

That is an extremely important point. For those of us who remember the social fund, it was a resource that many of our constituents fell back on in times of need. It did give them the support they needed, and in many ways it was administered relatively well. It got resources to the people with needs, and it did so with minimal costs.

The Government urgently need to provide the certainty that the public deserve on all these matters. Our worry is that, because this package does not at the moment appear to be comprehensive, it ultimately will not make us all safer, and it may put people at risk, as especially those in low-income groups may have to make the very difficult choice, as I have said, between health and hardship.

Although it has been reported that there has been some communication between Finance Ministers internationally, it is certainly not clear whether it is of the scale or depth of co-ordination in, for example, the crisis in 2007-08. As a result, whatever statements have been made have not had the effect of steadying markets or reassuring people more generally that, basically, there is an internationally agreed strategy to address the economic consequences of this emergency.

[Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the co-ordinated action that has taken place between the Treasury and the Bank of England could now be used as a model to show our international friends and partners how to do it, so that we can build on what we have already done?

[John McDonnell]

That is an extremely valid point. The co-ordination between the Bank of England and the Treasury is an example of what could be followed elsewhere, and it is being followed in some areas. However, the issue for me is that we can develop a United Kingdom strategy or an individual country strategy, but we are dealing with a virus that respects no borders. It is a global contagion now—a pandemic—so there needs to be international co-operation. What demonstrated the lack of international co-operation was the Fed cutting rates one week and the Bank of England cutting rates the following week, and the Fed cut had no impact whatsoever.

[Bim Afolami]

I agree with much of what the right hon. Gentleman says, but does that not show—because this is such a new phenomenon and such a new difficulty, and every country is struggling to find a policy response to it—that we may not have used the right tools? What the Treasury, the Bank of England and all our international partners are now having to do is to figure out what the right tools are, and we have to work together to try to figure that out.

[John McDonnell]

The hon. Gentleman makes exactly the right point. Not everybody supported the cut in interest rates, but the most important statement from the Bank of England was about the mechanisms with regard to the banks and lending, and about making sure that liquidity continues.

The point I am making is that, when we are dealing with what is in effect a global crisis, individual solutions in individual countries are not as effective as global co-ordination. I will give an example. Whatever criticisms people may have had of Gordon Brown’s individual policies during the banking crisis—I was here then, and actually I was giving a running commentary from the Back Benches, which perhaps at times was not welcome—no one can question the international leadership that he showed. There was a focus on and determination in bringing people together, and he brought to this crisis a mechanism by which, through the different international bodies, world leaders met and agreed a global strategy. Whatever people think of the outcome or about the merits or demerits of quantitative easing and so on, it did send out a message, and the markets eventually stabilised. I regret that we have not seen such a political and diplomatic leadership commitment or, indeed, such managerial ability from the Prime Minister or the Chancellor as yet.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

Before my right hon. Friend moves on from his point about a co-ordinated international response, one of the things put in place at that time, about which there has been a lack of discussion this time, is what to do for those countries that have very basic healthcare systems. This virus respects no borders. Is there not a need for co-ordinated international action to get help to countries where testing and treatment may be much more rudimentary than they are here?

[John McDonnell]

To give the Government their due, the Chancellor did announce a £150 million contribution to the IMF, so there is an element of financial involvement and engagement. However, it requires the co-ordination of policy to ensure that those resources are directed effectively and successfully to tackle the very issue that my right hon. Friend raised. I hope that will be a model for the future when other global issues have to be confronted. As in the past—and this has happened under various Governments and political leaders—the UK should now be playing a critical role in mobilising the international bodies we have, in particular the UN, to agree a global response to deal not just with the current wave of this pandemic, but with the possibility of subsequent waves.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman is right about the need for collaboration, and he is also right about needing alacrity and the response to a dynamic set of circumstances requiring leadership. Can the Commonwealth play an active role here? He talked about an international body, and it is of course a body in which we play a pivotal part, and that would very much be in tune with what he has proposed.

[John McDonnell]

I fully concur with the right hon. Gentleman. The various international vehicles that we could mobilise are available to us, and we just need to do it now. It needs to be done at a senior level, in a way that sends out a message of determination across the globe to people and families, but also to the markets. We need to ensure that this medical crisis does not create the long-term recession that some are predicting as a result of its global implications. I will now move on from the coronavirus.

In addition to the coronavirus, we face other emergencies, and we must not lose sight of the two other crises that we face. One is the crisis in our public services—it is a social emergency—with the levels of poverty and inequality in our society. The other is of course the existential threat of climate change. I have to say that yesterday’s Budget failed to address the social emergency. We have discussed it on the Floor of this House before, but this social emergency sees 4.5 million of our children living in poverty, with 70% of those children living in households where an adult is in work. We have—I do not know how else to describe it—a crisis of in-work poverty that perhaps we have not seen for generations in this country.

I have to say that there was nothing in the Budget to relieve the hardships inflicted on our community by universal credit, the bedroom tax and, especially for disabled people, the brutality of the work capability assessments undertaken against them. In fact, the Government’s own table accompanying the Budget shows that the bottom 10% fare the worst as a result of tax decisions made in this Budget and the last spending round, which cannot be right. It cannot be right. It states that the bulk of the benefits are flowing to higher paid households. Yesterday some people were saying that this could have been a Labour Budget, but whoever said that was not looking hard enough at who wins and who loses in it. I believe that not one family will be lifted out of in-work poverty because of yesterday’s announcements. Yesterday we again heard the Government’s aspiration to get the national living wage to two thirds of median earnings, but that is not a real living wage; it is an aspiration for four or five years’ time. Some may also have seen the small print, which says, “if economic conditions allow”.

Worryingly, there is nothing of any substance in the Budget to tackle the long-term crises in our public services. Let us take the justice system, for example. In prisons there has been

“a sharp rise in deaths, violence, self-harm”

and suicides, which can all be

“linked to cuts”.

That is not my statement; it comes from the Institute for Government. The House of Commons Justice Committee has pointed to a £1.2 billion gap in justice funding, so the small sums in this Budget, such as £175 million for prison maintenance, just will not cut it. Not one prison officer will be safer on the landings because of this Budget, yet in some of our prisons, those people put their lives at risk on a daily basis.

On domestic violence, according to Women’s Aid, 10 domestic abuse victims are turned away from women’s refuges every day because of a lack of space. This Budget needed to commit £173 million to ensure that no survivor is turned away. It has not done that, and without that funding, the measures in the Domestic Abuse Bill simply cannot be delivered. Not one women’s refuge can feel assured that it will get the funding it needs from this Budget.

The National Education Union said that class sizes are rising, subjects are being dropped, and inadequate pay is making the education staffing crisis worse, but there will be few teachers from whom the pressure will be lifted as a result of this Budget.

On housing, the sums earmarked for rough sleeping are totally inadequate, and we know that at least £1 billion is needed to reverse cuts in homelessness services. Yesterday, the Chancellor said that he would end homelessness, but we heard that from the Prime Minister who, when he was Mayor of London, said that rough sleeping would be ended in London by the 2012 Olympics. Rough sleeping doubled during the Prime Minister’s second term as Mayor.

It goes on: not one library will be reopened as a result of yesterday’s Budget. Not one youth centre will reopen; not one Sure Start centre.

[Bim Afolami]

Forgive me if I have misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman, but I think that £13 million is going into community libraries across the country, and that will make a big difference. Will he address that point?

[John McDonnell]

I just say to the hon. Gentleman that that sum is minuscule in comparison with the cuts that have gone on. This will not be some immense revitalisation of our library services—far from it. Indeed, a lot of that will be swallowed up by the deficits that local authorities have developed by trying to maintain their existing services. I doubt there will be any new libraries; this might perhaps allow some existing libraries to keep their heads above water, but even that is difficult to envisage.

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

May I take my right hon. Friend back to the issue of domestic abuse? We all welcome the abolition of the tampon tax, which was championed by the former Member for Dewsbury, Paula Sherriff, but the funding raised from that—£393 million—was put towards services combating violence against women and girls. Does my right hon. Friend have any indication of how that gap in funding will be met for those vital services?

[John McDonnell]

We have had no indication about that, but I am pleased that my hon. Friend raised the issue, and perhaps we will get a response from the Government in due course. I congratulate her and Paula Sherriff. That long campaign paid off, which shows what tenacity can do, even in this House.

Let us get this Budget into context. The Institute for Fiscal Studies stated that £54 billion of day-to-day spending was needed, outside health and social care, to return to levels of per head expenditure in 2010. Not only does the Budget not meet that target, it goes nowhere near it. Why have the Government not gone further?

People need to understand what Conservatism is in this country, and what it means. For me, it means that the Conservative party will say or do anything it can to gain and retain power—anything except shift real power and wealth to working people. Just look at what the Government did yesterday on taxation, by choosing to keep entrepreneurs’ relief largely intact. That is a tax relief for 5,000 individuals who make an average of £350,000 each. There was a U-turn on the tax for foreign buyers of UK property. The surcharge is reducing from 3% to 2%, which reduces the amount of money earmarked— what for? For rough sleeping. So much for “the people’s priorities”.

This social emergency has been created by a fundamental failure of economic policy. It was interesting to hear the Chancellor, and others, tell us time and again how this country’s economic fundamentals are currently so sound. We warned them that austerity would damage the economy, and 10 years later, the verdict is clear. The statistics speak for themselves. Yesterday, the Office for National Statistics reported that prior to the coronavirus outbreak, growth in the three months to January was 0.0%. Manufacturing output was down by 1.2% over the same period, because of what the ONS described as “widespread weakness”. Productivity growth over the last 10 years has been at a dismal 0.3% average, and on pay growth, the slowest economic recovery for a century has been described by the chief economist at the Bank of England as a “pay disaster”.

In the Budget, there is a 0.4% downgrade for gross domestic product this year, even before calculating the impact of coronavirus. We have the weakest official growth outlook on record, according to the Resolution Foundation, with pay growth weakening in every year of the forecast—an outlook that will hit every household by £600 a year. Of course the Conservatives have failed to tackle in this Budget any long-standing challenges at the heart of our tax system, such as how we treat capital alongside income fairly, how local councils can have stable funding, or how we rationalise the long list of tax reliefs that provide opportunities for tax avoidance and evasion.

The Tories have not scrambled together this Budget because good economic performance made it possible. Yes, they have plagiarised some of Labour’s ideas, from rewriting the Green Book to bringing some of the railways back into public ownership, but that was only because they were forced to do that as a result of their own economic failures.

This week’s Budget shows that Tory tendency again, this time on infrastructure. A gimmicky grab-bag of projects was announced, while yet again the Government put off publishing the national infrastructure strategy. Even those announcements are disappointing. There is no commitment to deliver funding for the full northern powerhouse rail project, and four fifths of the £500 million investment in electric vehicle charging infrastructure is a reannouncement from 2017. The pothole fund is a repeat of a policy that was announced at least twice by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), and will be enough to repair about a quarter of the potholes.

There is an overall infrastructure pledge that goes only halfway to filling up the £192 billion infrastructure hole that the Tories created by underinvesting between 2010 and 2020. Again, the Tories have given us very little detail on who will build this infrastructure and who gains from this investment. On broadband, for example, their £5 billion investment will be a subsidy to private providers such as Virgin. There is no sense in this Budget that the Tories have any understanding of the skills investment that is needed to ensure that infrastructure can be delivered by those most in need of upgrading their skills and of being able to have a decent standard of living as a result.

Let us not forget the third emergency we are facing today. Future generations will never forgive this Government for their failure to address climate change in this Budget. Infrastructure investment, if properly planned, could have been an opportunity to shift the tracks on which this economy runs towards a zero-carbon future. The Government have missed that opportunity. The Institute for Public Policy Research’s environmental justice commission said that £33 billion a year in green investment was needed for the Government to achieve only their weak target of net zero emissions by 2050. The Chancellor has fallen woefully short of that target. Instead, the Chancellor has opted for £27 billion to be spent roads, which currently contribute 90% of the UK’s transport emissions. They have committed less than one fifth of that to buses and cycling. Fuel duty is still frozen, with no effective assistance to encourage the shift from cars dependent on fossil fuel to less polluting cars and public transport. There is no new support for renewable energy sources such as wind and solar. In the year when we host COP26, this Budget will be seen as a betrayal of future generations.

What are the lessons we must learn from this Budget? It should not take a medical crisis before a Government wake up to funding the NHS adequately. It should not take a collapse in the economy and the threat of recession to force a Government to invest. It should not take our children going on strike to force a Government to take climate change seriously. Our community has experienced 10 years of immense suffering under austerity for nothing—for the pursuit of ideology; a political and economic experiment that has failed. This Budget should have been the most significant since the second world war. It should have been a turning point. As time has allowed scrutiny of this Budget in the past 18 hours or so, it has become clear that it has failed. It does not come close to reversing the damage of the past 10 years of austerity.

I give this final warning to the Government and to all of us. If we sow the seeds of disappointment and disillusionment, it could stir up a form of politics that none of us wishes our country to experience. We need the Government to recognise that they have a responsibility to bring forward—it may now be in autumn—a Budget that tackles our social emergency, our crisis in public services, the levels of poverty and inequality in our society, and the existential threat of climate change. The Opposition will do everything we can to ensure that the Government listen and bring that Budget forward.

[Several hon. Members rose—]