Summer Adjournment

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2014 Commons Chamber

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

I apologise, because I want to raise six issues, but I will take only a couple of sentences on each one.

It will be world hepatitis day on 28 July. The Hepatitis C Trust briefed Members two weeks ago about the number of hepatitis C sufferers in this country. There are now 250,000 in the UK and most remain undiagnosed. New treatments are able to cure 95%, but awareness and testing are extremely low, so only 3% of sufferers receive treatment every year. I want to put that on record and urge the Government to increase the awareness of hepatitis C in our country and to prioritise diagnosis and treatment.

I want to raise three issues with regard to the fire service. In the Christmas recess debate I raised the ongoing dispute between the Fire Brigades Union and the Government on pension age and pension protection, and I wish to do so again because the dispute has not been resolved. The Northern Ireland Administration and the Scottish Government have agreed with the FBU that a retirement age of 60 is too old for the physical demands of the firefighting job. They have also agreed on a retirement age of 55 with no financial penalty, but the UK Government will still not budge. I urge the new fire Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), to break the deadlock and enter into meaningful negotiations. I hope she will agree to meet the FBU parliamentary group to discuss the matter. We are willing to meet at any stage during the recess, if it will help to resolve the dispute.

Another issue is the ongoing discussions about the unresolved pension arrangements for defence fire service and rescue firefighters. In 2015, these firefighters will contribute 12.55% to their pension, which is the highest contribution in the fire service across the country. They will pay more than any other firefighters, but they will receive yet fewer benefits. They have still not had a decision from Government about their pension age. I, along with a number of colleagues, including the hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell), who has just left his place, and the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid), wrote to the fire Minister last week, urging her to resolve the matter. We thought it would be resolved months ago, but it has not. I urge the Government to look at the matter, because these firefighters consider their pension to be insecure and require a decision from the Government.

Thirdly, I want to draw the attention of the House—this is a cross-party issue—to the Mayor of London’s attempt to change the representation on the London fire authority. He is promoting a statutory instrument that will enable the replacement of London assembly and borough representatives on the fire authority with his own appointees. It will cut the Labour representation in half and remove all Lib Dem and Green representation. I urge the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to refuse to agree to the introduction of the statutory instrument, but if it is introduced I urge Members to vote against it on a cross-party basis.

May I tread into Northern Ireland again and talk about welfare reform there? The Government are seeking to impose their welfare reform legislation on the people of Northern Ireland, including the bedroom tax, the harsh benefit sanctions, the disaster of universal credit and work capability assessments, with all their adverse consequences. Sinn Fein has looked at the hardship that such measures have caused in England and Wales and has met several representatives in this country, Wales and Scotland, and it is concerned about what has happened here, especially to the most vulnerable—children and people with disabilities. It has been agreed that those welfare reform proposals are not appropriate for Northern Ireland and not supported by the people, and that they should therefore not be implemented.

The Government’s response has been to impose a £13 million fine on the Northern Ireland Administration for 2014, which will rise to £87 million in 2014-15 and to £114 million in 2015-16. That was contained in a letter I was copied into from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. It is somewhat bizarre, because at the same time he sent the letter, he was saying publicly that he would vote to scrap the bedroom tax after the next election—somewhat contradictory, but I suppose unsurprising of the man. I urge the Government to think again. The proposals threaten not just to impose a significantly harsh welfare regime on the people of Northern Ireland, but to undermine the whole concept of devolved government.

I want to turn to Hillingdon council, which I raised in the last pre-recess Adjournment debate. Again, I desperately urge the Government to launch an independent public inquiry into the administration of Hillingdon council. Eighteen months ago, I brought to the House for debate Transparency International’s report on the potential risk of corruption and maladministration in local government in this country. Transparency International is the organisation that specialises in preparing reports on openness and transparency in Governments overall, and in calculating levels of corruption across the world to produce a league table of states.

Transparency International looked at the changes in local government administration and decision making in this country in recent years—under the previous Government and under this one—and it expressed concerns about the risk of corruption and maladministration in local government in this country. I believe that Hillingdon council is a prime example of what Transparency International was talking about. In Hillingdon, we now live under an elective dictatorship. It is a prime example of the lack of openness and transparency in decision making.

I believe that the use of the argument that commercial confidentiality prevents open discussion of decisions and issues before the council is used to cover up incompetence and maybe worse. I would just give the example of this week’s cabinet committee papers. On 25 July, the cabinet will meet, but of the 12 items with reports on the agenda, seven are marked as restricted and will not be publicly published. Not only are the general public denied any access to those reports, but any opposition councillor who in any way informs the public about any items in those reports will be threatened with criminal action. I believe that that is unacceptable: it is actually undermining local democracy within my area.

I have raised that matter on several occasions. On one of them, I used the example of Triscott House, which is a residential home for elderly people. When it was renovated, there was a delay of 18 months as that dragged on, and ladies in their 80s—one was in her 90s—lived out of packing cases while waiting to be rehoused back into Triscott House. I demonstrated that that was because the council had fallen out with a contractor, and I exposed on the Floor on the House that it had laundered money to pay the contractor through another contract. I now find from a cabinet report that the council is now at risk of incurring a £1 million payment to the contractor as a result of the settlement of the dispute. That all arose from the fact that the leader’s decision was not reported publicly at all, which is a disgrace.

I do not think that the Government can stand to one side when such practices are undermining confidence in local government and democracy overall. I therefore again urge them to establish a full independent public inquiry to reassure my constituents that local democracy can be restored to my community.

Deregulation Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake]

Of course it is. I have just stated the parameters that will be used to establish whether it is appropriate to reopen an investigation. We would, of course, want to ensure that the families had the answers that they wanted and deserved, so that they could get closure. We are arguing only about whether there should be a mandatory requirement on the Secretary of State to reopen formal inquiries, irrespective of the value of any new evidence that comes forward, and however small it is.

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

I hope to catch the Speaker’s eye later and contribute to the debate. The Minister may be convinced, but it is the seafarers and their families who need convincing, and they are not convinced. Will he clarify the process from here onwards? Will there be detailed regulation and consultation? If the legislation is agreed to today, how do we go forward towards implementation?

[Tom Brake]

I shall respond to that shortly, but let me restate that I do not believe that anything we are proposing would have got in the way of the MV Derbyshire inquiry. All the evidence surrounding that shows that under these proposals the Secretary of State would still have reopened the investigation. All we are talking about is whether there should be an automatic trigger, irrespective of the nature of the evidence that comes forward. That is the only point that is in dispute, and I am absolutely certain that if the current Secretary of State or any future Secretary of State felt that the evidence brought forward could, in any shape or form, lead to further safety improvements being identified, they would want to proceed with a formal inquiry. I think most Members would agree that if, 100 years from now, a formal investigation was automatically triggered under this legislation by something that happened today, that would not be likely to make a significant contribution to improving safety.

Amendments 36 to 49 make minor technical improvements to the drafting of schedule 2. Amendments 36, 37 and 39 make drafting changes to render the language more consistent. Amendments 40 and 43 relate to new section 128ZZA, which allows the registrar to cancel a requirement to undergo an emergency control assessment when it is appropriate to do so. The policy intention was to cover all ECAs, but cross-references were missed, so the Bill does not cover the ECAs that are required in relation to licences for trainee instructors. Amendments 40 and 43 simply extend the new section to cover ECAs in connection with licences.

Amendment 41 amends new section 133B(2A), which concerns the ability to retake failed ECAs. It inserts references to assessments required in relation to licences for trainee instructors, which will ensure that the ability to retake a failed assessment applies to all assessments, regardless of the stage at which they were originally ordered. New section 133B(5A) states that a person applying to undergo a further ECA cannot do so until after a further six months, or any other such period prescribed by regulations. Amendments 38 and 42 simply allow a person to retake an ECA before the end of the six-month period in cases in which that is appropriate. Amendments 44 to 49 make consequential amendments to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 to reflect amendments made to the Act by schedule 2 to the Bill.

Let me now conclude my remarks—

[John McDonnell]

Will the Minister answer the question that I asked earlier, about the process involving marine investigations?

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas]

I rise to reinforce some of the arguments that hon. Members have made about amendment 61, to which I have added my name. Many people in my constituency have raised this issue with me, and there is real concern about public safety. Nothing that I have heard from the Government this afternoon has put my mind—or, I am sure, my constituents’ minds—at rest.

Taxi companies in my constituency have also raised concerns. I come back to a theme to which other hon. Members have returned time and again: nobody really knows what is driving these measures. People are not asking for them; on the contrary, organisations that are watching the proposals are sounding the alarm. They include the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, which we should surely listen to closely. Given that no counter-argument is coming from other organisations to balance the discussion, it strikes me as incredibly perverse for the Government to push ahead with these measures and fly in the face of so much advice suggesting that there are dangers involved.

I was particularly moved to hear the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) again tell the House the story of her 13-year-old constituent—she raised that topic in the Westminster Hall debate secured by the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) a few weeks ago. It was horrifying to hear that story then, just as it was today. The bottom line is that people with disabilities, young women, those worried about how they will get home at night, and those without access to a car will be watching for the implications of clauses 10 to 12, and they are worried about them.

Brighton and Hove has 1,800 drivers who serve our city well. Many of them have said that they are worried about the Government’s attempts to rush through changes to the regulations, and that the measures will be bad for the travelling public and the city, and potentially dangerous. The Government proposals seem rushed and are another example of unthinking, anti-regulation, small-state ideology that has no basis in evidence or common sense and, as has been said, risks putting public safety at risk.

We have had nothing close to meaningful consultation, and the Government even failed to discuss these changes with councils before tabling the clauses. The Local Government Association put it politely, but states clearly:

“We are disappointed that the LGA was not made aware of these proposed clauses until they were brought before the Deregulation Bill Committee.”

Where is the speed coming from? Why do we have to pre-empt other processes to get these measures into statute so fast?

There is concern that the proposals could lead to women being put at risk of assault or attack by unlicensed and unregulated drivers when they travel late at night. The deregulation of the taxi industry could also lead to rogue taxi drivers, criminals posing as drivers, passengers being ripped off, and people being unsure whether the taxi they have flagged down is legitimate.

Ministers should surely follow the 2011 proposals of experts on the cross-party Select Committee on Transport, who advised the Government to listen to users—particularly those in vulnerable groups—those in the trade, and local authorities, and to keep the situation simple and local. Instead, clauses 10 to 12 show a systematic attempt to water down standards and rules that were designed to serve and protect the public.

I come back to the sense that this is being driven by—I do not know: is it being driven by ideology or something else? During the debate of the hon. Member for Easington in Westminster Hall, I just observed that the boss of the minicab giant Addison Lee had made an individual donation of £500,000 to the Conservatives last year—it was reported as the third largest donation in the three months to the end of September. Government Members immediately started jumping up to point out that Addison Lee does not currently operate outside London and so has no particular interest. However, Addison Lee is on record as saying that it would very much like to operate outside London. I will leave it there; I simply say that when we are searching for a reason to understand why the Government are pursuing this policy, one cannot help but notice that there has been a very large donation from Addison Lee.

[John McDonnell]

I convene the RMT group in Parliament. I raised these issues at the RMT conference this morning and we had a discussion about their implications.

On the taxi and minicab issue, the RMT represents only the black cabs in London, which has been prayed in aid as operating the system that will now be rolled out elsewhere. I want to dissuade the Minister from the view that the RMT is happy with the regime in London at the moment. In fact, in the RMT’s view, there should be further regulation, with annual testing. The figures have already been given for assaults and rapes, which are occurring even in the capital city’s regulated regime.

What worries me is exactly what others have said. From the point of view of the union and a number of other organisations that have been cited, everyone thought that we were on a journey over the last couple of years: the Law Commission would conduct its investigation and review; there would be adequate consultation; a comprehensive Bill would be produced; and then we would establish a regime that, although perhaps not everyone would be happy with it, would at least be nationally comprehensive, effective, properly enforced and readily understandable. There is therefore a lack of comprehension of why the measures have been introduced in such haste. In fact, I am led to believe that one of the informal consultations on some of the legislation lasted only 10 days and was conducted by e-mail.

There may well be some association between donations, speed and amendments, but to be frank, what concerns me most is getting the legislation right, and I just do not think that the measure will prove effective. I think it will cause more problems than it is worth. I also think it will prove deeply unpopular as it is rolled out. If there is a lack of safety, particularly for women, the Government will reap the whirlwind. They will face a backlash, because what they are doing flies in the face of all the expert evidence that has been presented. Everyone who practises on the ground, right across the country, is saying that this is not the way to go about it, so I caution the Government: they are making a mistake today and may well want to think again before the day is out.

On marine investigations, again, people are slightly bewildered about why the measure is included in this Bill. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden), who sits on the Front Bench, for taking us through the history and in particular the Derbyshire incident. I, too, want to go back to that incident, because I find it extraordinary. I remember the campaign about the Derbyshire and I remember that key period when a number of the unions and others were raising the problems with that type of ship. From 1975 to 1997, nearly 400 of them went down and we lost something like 1,300 seafarers. The Derbyshire was one of those ships. There was an issue with design and safety.

At the time, there were all sorts of insinuations about it being the crew’s fault. The RMT undertook its own investigation, along with Nautilus and the International Transport Workers Federation, as my hon. Friend said. They found the ship and discovered the real causes. However, the investigation would not have been reopened but for a piece of legislation introduced in 1995 by—who? By a Conservative Government. Until then, the system was not satisfactory. The Derbyshire relatives, the unions and others had to campaign because reopening an inquiry was left to the whim of a Minister. That was unsatisfactory. A Conservative Government thus changed the legislation to provide for an automatic reopening of an inquiry when new evidence was found.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Brake]

I am afraid that my advice says that the hon. Gentleman’s amendment widens the remit rather than closing it down. Perhaps he should go back and look at precisely what he is proposing. It is clear that the Secretary of State will still be required to reopen a formal investigation where there are grounds for suspecting a miscarriage of justice. It is also worth pointing out that what we are talking about has no impact on the work of the marine accident investigation branch; that is completely separate to this issue.

The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) asked whether there would be regulations for marine investigations. The answer is no, there would not be regulations. That is something that would be implemented. We have set out the circumstances in which we would expect the Secretary of State formally to reopen an inquiry. We would of course consider any specific requests that were received from relatives or trade unions that were affected by that decision-making process. The measure would come into force two months after Royal Assent.

[John McDonnell]

The Minister should recognise that he is now taking the law back to what it was when it was completely ineffective. The Conservative Government had to amend the legislation, and the Derbyshire relatives had to campaign for 20 years to ensure that they got justice.

[Tom Brake]

I simply do not agree with that. I said that, under our proposals, the MV Derbyshire case is one that would have been reopened. I must disagree with the hon. Gentleman on his analysis of the impact of this measure.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

The reason why the Conservative Government introduced the legislation was that the decision was at the discretion of the Minister. This measure returns it to the discretion of a Minister—it does not matter which party is in power—in whom the public no longer have confidence.

[Tom Brake]

As the hon. Gentleman will have heard me say in relation to miscarriages of justice, there is no flexibility. There will be an automatic reopening of the inquiry. I hope that he agrees that there must be some assessment of whether or not new evidence should trigger a formal reopening of an inquiry. Surely the evidence must pertain to the incident. It has to be of a nature that is likely to lead to safety improvements.

[John McDonnell]

rose—

[Tom Brake]

I will give way one final time.

[John McDonnell]

That is precisely why I support the amendment. However, if the amendment is not suitably drafted, the usual process is that Government consult on the detail of regulation. People will be involved in that, and we can hopefully arrive at a consensus. Today the Minister is saying that there will be no regulation that will guide Minister and therefore no consultation. We are back where we were before 1995.

[Tom Brake]

I am repeating myself rather a lot, but I say again that we are not back where we were. I have made it clear that, under our proposals, the MV Derbyshire inquiry would have happened.

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) for his support. I was not quite as surprised as he thought I might be in receiving support from him. He expressed the view that the Government had not gone far enough in relation to deregulation. The Opposition saying that we have gone too far and my right hon. Friend saying that we have not gone far enough probably means that the Government have got it about right.

My right hon. Friend went on to highlight other problems with parking, with which we, as Members of Parliament, are all too familiar. I apologise if I have not been brave enough to venture into the other areas that he would like to discuss in relation to parking, but, first, I would be ruled out of order, and, secondly, we all know that when it comes to parking issues, it is a lose-lose situation whatever decision is taken.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

I thank the Minister for his courtesy and for the constructive way in which he dealt with the development of amendments 16 and 17, meeting representatives of the National Union of Journalists, editors and others to avoid what could have been a disastrous incursion into the freedom of speech and of written material. None the less, I oppose the Bill overall and will be shouting against it. I will seek to vote against it, if only with a few others, for three reasons.

I believe that the health and safety legislation with regard to the self-employed means that people will be put at risk. It will cause absolute confusion. Only during the debate did we receive from the Minister a list of supposedly dangerous categories of employment, where people who are self-employed will still have the health and safety legislation applied to them, but whole areas of employment were left out, including the docks and some parts of the maritime sector, which are particularly dangerous. I think this will cause absolute confusion and will, sadly, result in loss of limbs and loss of life.

I am also opposed to the Bill because of its reforms relating to taxis and public hire vehicles which, as has been said today, will put the travelling public at risk. There will be no effective control over who will be plying that trade. Last year there were 200 incidents of attacks on people travelling in private hire cars in London, where this type of legislation already applies.

Thirdly, it is a disgrace that we are tearing up legislation introduced by a Conservative Government that ensured there was a proper investigation into the sinking of the Derbyshire and brought at least some comfort to the relatives of the victims. What we are doing now is ensuring that if another such accident occurs, the decision whether or not an inquiry is opened or reopened will be based on the whim of a Minister. That is a step backwards, and it means we have not learned the lessons the Conservative Government did learn in 1995, when they put this legislation in place.

For those reasons, I will seek to oppose this Bill at every possible opportunity.

Business of the House

John McDonnell Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2014 Commons Chamber

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

We recently marked the 30th anniversary of the Indian Government’s attack on the Golden Temple at Amritsar. Earlier this year, the Prime Minister set up an internal inquiry into allegations of collusion between the Thatcher and Gandhi Governments at the time. The inquiry was limited and internal, it did not include publication of all the documents, and it has not gained the confidence of the Sikh community in Britain, who have now launched a call for an independent, judge-led inquiry into the whole affair. Will the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister to come to the House and make a statement in response to the Sikh community’s request?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will recall the Foreign Secretary’s statement to the House following the Cabinet Secretary’s report. I saw the report and the papers associated with it, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman did. The Foreign Secretary made clear that the report constituted a comprehensive and conclusive response to the issues that had been raised, and I do not currently expect any further statement to be made.

Christmas Adjournment

John McDonnell Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman because that is exactly the point that I was trying to establish. When we anticipated the extension of the retirement age to 60, we did not think that every operational firefighter would be fit and healthy enough to work until 60. We thought that opportunities would be found for them in back-room jobs in fire prevention, school education and all manner of support roles to ensure that we took advantage of, and did not waste, the experience that they had accumulated over many years on the front line. However, because of austerity and the cuts and reductions that have been made in the service because we do not need as many fire stations and firefighters, there are many fewer such positions for firefighters who are not fit to fulfil other duties.

Under the new rules that the Government are trying to push through, firefighters are faced with a massive reduction in their pension if they go before 60. We never anticipated that there would be such a punitive element in the pension arrangements because, as part of the new deal, firefighters are being asked to contribute another 2.6%, which takes their deductions up to 12.6%. Many of us know the fire Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), and we have a lot of time for a number of the things that he does. Everyone on the Government Front Bench keeps describing the firefighters pension scheme as generous. It is a good scheme, but they are expected to pay 12.6% for it and the reason for that is deaths and injuries. The scheme is valid and valued, as it ought to be, because of the nature of the job.

Colleagues regularly stand up in this House to applaud the role that has been played by the emergency services in dealing with some tragedy, disaster, flood or storm. These people risk their lives for us on a daily basis. In their view, they are being forced to take industrial action because nobody is listening. They might have to take a hit of up to a 50% cut in their pension because they cannot last until 60. I am 61 and am relatively fit. I know what that job is about because I did it for 23 years. I know what it is like to be on strike. No emergency service worker wants to go on strike. They risk their lives for 365 days a year and then they have to walk out the door and deny the community that they want to protect the ability, discipline and professionalism that they have built up.

This is a monstrous situation. My appeal to the Deputy Leader of the House is that he takes the strong message back to the fire Minister, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and the Prime Minister that we need serious negotiations. As the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) said, if there are places for firefighters to work away from the front line, they will fill those places.

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

I will raise this matter, among others, when I speak. My hon. Friend should be aware that the general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union has received a letter from the fire Minister that is dated 18 December, which suggests that he is willing to meet again. The union is responding immediately because it is willing to meet the Minister any time, any place. However, there must be serious negotiations to settle the dispute. There is the potential to avoid strike action if the Minister is serious.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend because it is excellent news that the fire Minister has held out an olive branch to the Fire Brigades Union by saying that he is prepared to sit down with it, and that the union is contacting the Department for Communities and Local Government to set up the meeting. Nobody here wants to see any more fire strikes. Another series of strikes has been announced but I am convinced that nobody in the fire service wants to see more strikes. The last thing that the general public want to see is the withdrawal of any emergency service, with the cost and disruption that it causes to the authorities who have to provide the best possible cover.

In conclusion, I am grateful to the Foreign Office for what it is doing. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for indicating that the fire Minister has extended an offer of talks. I hope that those talks take place. Like the hon. Member for Southend West, I conclude by wishing you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and all the staff a very happy Christmas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lyn Brown]

I have not heard from others but my guess is that, should this debate be heard outside these walls, we collectively in this Chamber may well hear from our constituents who have endured similar experiences.

[John McDonnell]

A fair amount of survey work was done in respect of the all-party group on endometriosis, which produced very similar findings of inconsistent practices and practices that were incompatible with the well-being of the individuals.

[Lyn Brown]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention and I will look at that research if he signposts me towards it.

I promised Debbie that I would make her voice and the voice of other women who have had similar experiences heard today, and I hope I have done that, but merely hearing the voices is not enough. This Government have the mantra of no decisions about me, without me, and that policy needs to be adopted in gynaecological procedures so that I and other hon. Members do not have more Debbies coming to our surgeries to tell us about their horrific experiences. I am hoping that the Deputy Leader of the House will take this to the Department of Health on Debbie’s behalf and on behalf of the other women, and I would hope that I will receive some communication from it in the new year telling me that Debbie, Jan, Jo, Katharine, Jenny, Michelle, Gillian, Patricia, Maureen and the many other women I have heard from will be well and truly heard.

May I thank hon. Members for staying in the Chamber for my contribution this afternoon and may I also wish everyone, including the staff of this House, a happy Christmas and a very happy and prosperous new year?

--- Later in debate ---

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

That was an extremely helpful speech from the hon. Member for Harrow West—

[Bob Blackman]

Harrow East.

[John McDonnell]

I am sorry—how could I?

I hope to re-launch our housing campaign in Hayes and Harlington in the new year, and many of the themes the hon. Gentleman set out are echoed in many constituencies across London. Some of the solutions he set out—particularly the engagement of local authorities—are critically important. I welcome the Government’s additional money for Hillingdon, but it did not go far enough. A much more serious approach is needed.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) made a terrific speech, which needed to be made, although it was excruciating to hear about the pain that women have gone through. If she needs support in campaigning on any of the issues she raised, I am sure that she secured it across the House today.

I wish to raise a number of issues as briefly as possible. It would be remiss of me not to mention the threat to my constituency from the proposed third and fourth runways at Heathrow. Many of my constituents, particularly in Harmondsworth and Longford, will be sitting down this Christmas faced with the threat of their homes being bulldozed. We saw what happened with the original third runway proposal for Sipson, where a compensation scheme was introduced and BAA bought up virtually all the properties. People are living in those properties, but the life of the village—some have described it as a shell; I do not think it is that bad—is somewhat different from what it was. We are engaging the new residents in community life as best we can, but the blight caused by the threat of a runway being built over their homes has resulted in the loss of a large number of residents who had lived there for generations.

The threat now extends across to Harmondsworth and Longford, and beyond into West Drayton, which was represented by the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) in former years. A population of 10,000 to 15,000 people now face an overall threat to their accommodation and from noise and pollution. Parents are sitting down at Christmas thinking that their home is going to be demolished some time in the future. They are planning their children’s education knowing that two of the best schools in our area—Heathrow and Harmondsworth primary schools—would be bulldozed as well. It looks as though other schools, particularly along the M4, perhaps Pinkwell and Harmondsworth primary schools, would be rendered unusable as a result of noise and air pollution.

The right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip talked about Cherry Lane cemetery becoming an issue again. The last time we had this misfortune, the BAA documents that were leaked to us demonstrated that the road network that would service the new runway and the expanded airport ran through Cherry Lane cemetery. In particular, it ran through the children’s area of the cemetery, and that of course caused immense distress within my community. That threat will return with the road structure that would be proposed for the new third and fourth runways.

I am also worried that Harmondsworth village will be obliterated, and that includes St Mary’s church and the mediaeval barn. Linked to St Mary’s church is the graveyard, which is still being used. Ironically, Keith Dobson, one of the prime campaigners with me over the past 40 years against a fourth terminal, a fifth terminal and a third runway, is buried in St Mary’s churchyard. It would be a tragedy if we had to disinter the bodies of our relatives and friends as a result of this.

[Sir John Randall]

There are also a number of war graves in St Mary’s churchyard, and that is something else we have to consider.

[John McDonnell]

The right hon. Gentleman will remember that in our previous campaign, John Wilkinson, who was the Member for Ruislip-Northwood and served on the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, raised that very point. It was one of the key issues that was raised at the time of our very broad-based campaign against the expansion of Heathrow airport.

I want Members to go away and think how devastating the announcement from the Davies commission is for these families. However, I am optimistic, as I think the right hon. Gentleman is, that we can defeat this. Any Government who sought to expand Heathrow airport, which would impact on perhaps 2 million people in terms of noise and air pollution, would face opprobrium. The political impact would be significant; I think it would determine a shift in a number of seats. On that basis, I cannot see any Government politically sustaining the policy of expanding Heathrow airport.

Just in case anyone tries, let me give this warning: we will campaign on a scale that this Government and previous Governments have never seen before. It will be a campaign in which we mobilise local residents, but because of the impact across London, it will unite communities across London. There are already plans for a march all the way from Harmondsworth through every constituency affected—all the way through west London and into central London—which will garner support as we go along. It will be a crusade that will march right the way through west London and pick up hundreds, if not thousands of people in opposition to the Government. There will also be support from green campaigners who are concerned about the impact of the expansion of Heathrow airport on climate change. There will be direct action campaigns by environmentalists.

Last time this happened, a climate camp appeared in my constituency: 1,000 people turned up overnight, built a village and launched a direct action campaign, which contributed to influencing the Conservative party to change its policy. I warn the Government that people will not lie down and let their homes be bulldozed and their schools demolished, and they will not be threatened with having to dig up their dead from the cemetery. People will fight back, and as part of that fightback I will convene a meeting at Heathrow primary school on 16 January. I encourage Members to come along, because it will be the first discussion among local residents on the implications of the Davies announcement.

On the HS2 link, which the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip has mentioned, ours is the only area in the whole country that does not yet know where HS2 will go. We have been denied the opportunity to engage in a consultation on the route, because the Government will not reveal the route into the airport. That has resulted in uncertainty in the community. It will be a blight on the area and, to be frank, the community is angry, because it no longer trusts politicians or Governments on any issue of infrastructure in our area. I do not mean this as a party political point, but for the Prime Minister to explicitly say,

“no ifs, no buts, there will be no third runway”,

only for us now to face not only a third but a fourth runway, does not inspire confidence in the Government’s attitude to any infrastructure development in our area, including HS2.

I urge all parties in the House to agree that the decisions on the options for runway and aviation expansion and for the HS2 route into Heathrow airport should not be delayed beyond the next election. The Davies commission was politically and strategically timed to report after the next general election, to get every political party off the hook. The electorate will not find that acceptable. They will see it as another politician’s ploy not to be honest with the people who will be affected by both schemes.

It behoves all political parties to come to an agreement that the final report of the Davies commission should be published before the general election, and individual political parties should go into that election explaining honestly to the electorate their position on aviation expansion. They also need to explain to my community their position on the link between HS2 and Heathrow. It will be seen as fundamentally dishonest of all the political parties if they do not state their case and demonstrate to the electorate their position on aviation expansion. If they do not make their position clear, people will see through them and they will get angry, and when people get angry with politicians and feel that the democratic and parliamentary process is not working for them, they will take to the streets. It will encourage even more direct action and more disillusionment with politics in this country.

I also want to address the Fire Brigades Union dispute, which my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) has mentioned. We face potential strikes by firefighters on Christmas eve, new year’s eve and beyond. None of them want to take action and go on strike; they want a resolution. The dispute stems from the previous Government’s proposals to increase the retirement age of firefighters under the pension scheme. The Williams review submitted evidence to the Government of concerns about the physical capacity of firefighters undertaking duties beyond a certain age. That was ignored by the Government, and they went ahead.

My hon. Friend mentioned the argument made with regard to other jobs, as did the hon. Member for Harrow West—

[Bob Blackman]

East!

[John McDonnell]

I am so sorry. I have a directional problem: I am lost once I get north of the A40, I am afraid.

It was proposed that those firefighters who were incapable of completing all of their duties could be moved to other roles, but then, unfortunately, the cuts took place and we identified that, in one year, there were only 15 vacancies to which front-line firefighters could be transferred in way that would enable them to continue in work and to pay into their pension and earn a wage. The reason for the disputes was that employers and the Government refused to recognise that there was an issue about the capability and fitness problem faced by firefighters. A strike took place, which at least led to a breakthrough in that employers recognised that there was an issue that had to be addressed. Negotiations took place on eight points, but they basically foundered on two main ones.

The first, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse, was the risk of having no job and no pension. Firefighters find that they physically cannot do the job, which all the evidence points towards. To be frank, I do not want a geriatric firefighter coming up a ladder to rescue me, and all the evidence demonstrates that as firefighters reach 55 or 60, their capability goes down. In addition, there is further evidence about the—short—longevity of firefighters after they retire.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

My hon. Friend referred to the Williams inquiry. Williams said that estimates were that from 20% up to 90% of firefighters would not be able to work until 60, so there is a big demand for alternative employment for them or for their pensions to be honoured.

[John McDonnell]

I thought that the FBU was fairly reasonable in simply asking for some guarantee to take back to its members about their having either a job or a pension. It is as simple as that: the problem is that people cannot be in the situation of having no job and no pension. As I have said, the employers and the Government accepted that there was an issue to address, but how were firefighters to gain such a guarantee? That is the problem of the dispute at the moment.

In the negotiations, the fire Minister eventually offered a change to the national framework so that there is guidance to employers that some form of security should be given to firefighters in the form either of a job or of a guaranteed pension. The problem about the national framework is that it is guidance; it is not legally enforceable. The FBU has brought cases, so there is case law, and Lord Justice Rix has clearly demonstrated that the framework is guidance that employers can ignore. It is as simple as that. One problem with Ministers coming and going is that when Ministers give guidance, some employers perhaps abide by it for a period, but Ministers come and go and Governments come and go, and employers eventually interpret the guidance as they see fit.

The FBU put forward a draft proposal that instead of guidance, the fire Minister should adopt regulations linked to the pension scheme. If he had accepted that, one of the main points of the dispute would have been resolved, but that was refused. The FBU has warned of further strike action. It has balloted its members and received overwhelming support for strike action. As a result of the legal process that unions have to go through, it has now had to call the dates for the strikes. The Minister wrote yesterday to say that he was willing to meet it again, but as I said in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse, the FBU is willing to meet any time, any place—wherever the Minister wants—but the talks have to be meaningful, not just another round of public relations stunts or spin.

I have a lot of time for the fire Minister, but given the seriousness of the dispute, I would say at this point that the issue has reached Secretary of State level. As happened in the last fire dispute, the Secretary of State has to come to the table to start negotiations. In the last fire dispute under the previous Government, I remember the Prime Minister getting involved at one point to try to hammer out the issue so that people were not put at risk. We are within days of another dispute leading to another strike, and the Secretary of State needs at least to get involved in starting off negotiations. His coming to the table would demonstrate a seriousness of intent.

The other issue, which I will not go into in depth, is that of contributions. That was mentioned by my hon. Friend, who gave the figures in percentage terms. Under the new pension scheme, there will be an increase in contributions each year for four years: for members of the 2006 scheme, contributions will go up from 8.5% in 2011 to 12.6% in 2015. A firefighter on a salary of £29,766 will pay more than £4,000 a year for their pension alone if those increases are imposed. That is a significant increase for people who are on a relatively modest wage for professionals in this field.

I urge all Members, because the onus is on all of us, to ensure that we lay the path for negotiations to head off the current dispute. I think that the Secretary of State needs to come to the table for meaningful discussions to resolve the matter. I am happy to assist in the discussions at any time and to try to get people together. The FBU has made it very clear over the past 24 hours that it is willing to talk, but that the talks must be serious.

Another staffing issue that I want to raise relates to staff in this House. The dispute of the Commons Tea Room staff has still not been resolved a year on. To make Members aware of what happened, let me say that elements of the new management decided to reinterpret the contract that some of the Members’ Tea Room staff had been working on for more than 20 years. They decided that the old contract had been misinterpreted by the previous management and introduced what was effectively a reduction in pay and conditions. The dispute has gone on and negotiations have taken place, but it has not been resolved. I am told that the next stage is that the individual members of staff are getting together as a group to meet management again.

We are well served by those staff. They work incredibly hard, sometimes with demanding Members coming in at all hours and wanting all sorts of foodstuffs. They always serve us with a smile. I think that they deserve a bit more respect than they are getting. Trying to tear up their conditions of service when some of them have been working there for two decades is just not acceptable.

Last week, I met the security staff here who are members of the Public and Commercial Services Union. I am chair of the PCS parliamentary group. New rosters were imposed on the security staff earlier this year. There was a strike, but it did not resolve the issue and the rosters were still imposed. The new rosters reduce the flexibility of the work and impact on carers. Those people are largely women, because they tend to be the carers in society, but it affects parents generally and other types of carers. The staff have demonstrated to management that the new rosters are costing more than the old ones because of the high levels of overtime that have to be paid and the lack of flexibility.

The security staff are employed by the Metropolitan police on a contract. That contract is up for renegotiation in 2015. The staff are worried that they are being set up for privatisation. They want to enter into negotiations with management so that staff are able to continue with that contract or, if the Metropolitan police do not want the contract, the staff can be brought in-house. If Members have the time, they should speak to the security staff, because they are unhappy and disgruntled. They are worried not only about their terms of service, but that their service is not good enough because they do not have the flexibility that they used to have, that it is costing more and that their position will be undermined in the longer term.

I want to make two last points. The right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) spoke about the Metropolitan police. I am anxious about what is happening in the Met. A range of cuts are feeding through. Safer neighbourhood teams were one of the best policing reforms that were undertaken by the last Government. It is good to have a local sergeant, two police constables and a couple of police community support officers located within the ward and to have the guarantee that they will not be pulled out of the ward for other extraneous duties. The cuts that are coming through now are undermining safer neighbourhood policing in our areas. There are not sufficient PCs, the recruitment of PCSOs is not happening and safer neighbourhood teams are being combined. That is breaking down the local connection.

The retirement of a large number of officers who had long service means that we have lost a lot of experienced police officers. When we lose that experience we also lose the supervision, and I am anxious about that. In my constituency, as in many across London, we are losing police officers and their visibility on the streets is being reduced. At the same time—I agree about this with the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip and we share the same borough—the quality of policing we receive is superb. The police work extremely hard under extremely difficult circumstances and with reducing resources.

Finally, I will refer to one happy piece of news. The Independent Workers Union of Great Britain is a small trade union that has been running a campaign to secure the living wage for cleaners, particularly in central London and the City. One employer that has been a difficult nut to crack is a company called MITIE. The union organised its workers and there have been disputes and demonstrations. MITIE issued a letter to all its staff, basically saying that any appearance on a demonstration related to the living wage would be interpreted as gross misconduct and they would be dismissed. After a short campaign by the cleaners and an early-day motion in this House, and thanks to the hard work of the union organiser, Chris Ford, negotiations have taken place over the past couple of days. MITIE is now in negotiations with the union about the living wage in relation to the contract. It has withdrawn its threatening letter to the staff and even sent out a letter apologising to them. I congratulate the IWGB—in particular the organiser, Chris Ford—on that success, and also the employer for seeing sense and coming back to the negotiating table. I hope that will send a message to other employers.

We all sort of glamorise John Lewis as a wonderful mutual—apart, that is, for the fact that it has outsourced its cleaners who are not part of the mutual system and not paid the London living wage. Again, the IWGB has been running a campaign on that, and I have been on the picket lines, trying to urge that company to recognise that its cleaners should be part of its mutual structure and paid properly. The other group of workers who I think will be mobilised over the coming period are fast-food workers. They are largely not unionised and many are on the minimum wage with poor employment conditions. We have convened a meeting in the House of Commons next year to bring together all those unions, and others who want to campaign for the rights of fast-food workers in the new year.

In the spirit of Christmas, I wish hon. Members a happy Christmas and a determined and campaigning new year.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

It is good to follow the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). He made a powerful case about ensuring proper consultation on HS2 and the new runways at Heathrow, and I understand his concerns. Perhaps the issue does not cause me quite so much concern representing Tiverton and Honiton down in Devon, but I can see his concern and that of his constituents.

I want to raise a particularly difficult case that concerns the struggle of one of my constituents to obtain compensation for serious trauma caused to him back in the ’80s. I will give a brief background to the case. My constituent was living on an Army base in Cyprus in the late ’80s with his father, a GCHQ employee. My constituent experienced serious sexual abuse at the base from the age of 12 to 17 from a paedophile gang of military personnel from both the UK and the United Nations.

My constituent is seeking compensation for the serious damage caused to him while living on that Army camp in Cyprus, but I understand that he is not eligible for compensation through the Criminal Injuries Compensation (Overseas) Scheme because his father was not military personnel, even though he was attached to the Cyprus base. There is a UK national Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme, but my constituent is excluded from that because the offences took place outside the United Kingdom. There is also a Europe-wide scheme, but again my constituent is excluded by reason of the offences taking place prior to the implementation of that scheme. My constituent is excluded from other possible avenues for compensation. He is at present without a remedy for the grievous harm he has suffered. I understand that GCHQ comes under the jurisdiction of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, so it might be thought reasonable for it to implement a matching scheme to provide compensation for those in my constituent’s position, or, alternatively, to offer a one-off compensation award under the same principles as the overseas scheme.

I have met Ministers and military police. I think and hope that in 2013 the case has been dealt with much more sympathetically and in a much better manner. The military police dealt with my constituent’s case in a very high-handed and ineffective way, and I want very much for him to have closure in this matter. We need to find some form of compensation, whatever it is, just to say that somebody has owned up to the fact that it was not dealt with properly, and that the abuse he sustained all those years ago still affects him now. I have met him several times. I do not know whether the Deputy Leader of the House can help in any way, but I seek help from him because this is a very serious matter.

Moving on to other constituency matters, I would like to talk about the A30/A303. I hear in this House huge problems for the Government in trying to get HS2 going and the trouble with Heathrow airport. I assure the Government that they would have much less trouble dualling the A30/A303.

[John McDonnell]

I don’t suppose the hon. Gentleman would like a runway, would he?

[Neil Parish]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the idea that we could have a runway for Heathrow, but I think we are about 180 miles away. That is a long way away, but I understand his sentiments.

Returning to the A30/A303, from Exeter to Honiton the A30 is all dualled. It then goes from Honiton to the Somerset border, where it is not dualled. As it gets towards the Somerset border it splits off, with one part going on to Yeovil and the A30 carries on and goes into the A303. I want to see this part dualled in particular, and not just because it is in my constituency. Believe it or not, I am not just making a plea for my constituency, because it then travels up through Somerset and into Wiltshire. Of course, it passes by some rather interesting stones—I think they are called Stonehenge. How to pass them—whether we should build a tunnel and so on—has always been a thorny problem.

I think that, in all, nine sections of the A30/A303 need to be dualled. As a Government, we need to start picking up and running with these individual schemes. The greater the amount of dual carriageway on the road, the more we will have a second arterial route into the west country. Devon and Cornwall in particular, and Somerset too, rely a lot on tourism. Our businesses are hugely affected by the speed of travel. If the M5 is blocked, there is just carnage because traffic cannot get through.

Finances of the House of Commons

John McDonnell Excerpts

Thursday 21st November 2013 Commons Chamber

[John Thurso]

My belief is that that issue has, indeed, been addressed—and I think I have just had a little divine inspiration to confirm that. If, by any mischance, I have misinformed the hon. Gentleman, I will most certainly write to him, but otherwise he may take it that that has indeed been addressed.

The second issue I wish to touch on is what are termed zero-hours contracts. The Commission asked the Finance and Services Committee to look at that issue and prepare advice. We are in the final stages of preparing that advice and it will go to the Commission at its next meeting on Monday, so it is still, as it were, in draft, but I would like, if I may, to outline what the content of that advice is going to be.

In summary, we are advising that the House should not take on zero-hours contracts. Their key feature is that they do not have mutuality of obligation; that is the critical point that came out. We had a fascinating written and oral evidence session involving some very good employers ranging from supermarkets to the Royal Household and others, and what came out clearly was that good employers with good HR practices are not particularly keen on zero-hours contracts because of this lack of mutuality. We came to the firm view that, as that is the principal feature of zero-hours contracts, we should have nothing whatever to do with them.

We further go on to advise that where staff are currently being employed on a casual basis they should be placed on proper contracts that provide for full and appropriate employee rights with mutuality of obligation, and that that should be supported by best practice and, in particular, by the adoption of a code of conduct. I was particularly grateful to my right hon. Friend—if I may refer to him as that—the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) who, with other colleagues, put together a report on this issue that included a model code, which we think is very fit and which we intend to recommend to the Commission.

This kind of call-off contract is a much better way of dealing with the perfectly legitimate need to have some casual staff within our service, particularly in regard to catering. We believe that by doing that in the way I have set out, and which we intend to advise the Commission to follow, we will be fulfilling our goal of being employers of the first order.

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

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the work he is doing on this, which I think is very helpful. We have been in correspondence over the past year now about the interpretation of the contract of the staff in the Members’ Tea Room. Some of them have been working to certain customs and practice conditions for over 25 years and have had wage cuts as a result of a new interpretation of their contract. That still has not been resolved, and my understanding is that, following last week’s negotiations, the staff are still awaiting an offer from management. Can we try to resolve this situation as quickly as possible? It has gone on for more than a year and is undermining morale.

[John Thurso]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue with me. I do not have a specific answer to it, but I take very seriously what he said and will look at it, do what I can and come back to him.

The final point that we learned from our evidence session, and which absolutely every one of the HR directors of the various enterprises made, was: never allow HR and management to use zero hours as a sloppy way of managing staff. Our advice will contain a statement to that effect: that it is proper to have call-off contracts and to deal with casual staff properly, but it must be done with rigorous HR. I do not know what fellow commissioners may or may not say to all that, but I am hopeful that the Commission will accept the advice we are proffering.

The final point I would make on pay and conditions is that change is always difficult and unsettling, even in the best of organisations. I have had experience of, to use the jargon, “re-engineering” two businesses that were going bust to make them sustainable for the future. In making changes and asking people to change the way they do things, there are difficulties and there is absolutely no way round that. That is going on here, but what we are trying to ensure—and seeking to impress on the management—is that this be done as transparently and fairly as possible. There will be blips in morale from time to time, but everything possible should be done to mitigate that, and I believe the House service has listened to the points we have made.

There is of course one major area of disagreement on pay and conditions, which is going to end up being dealt with in court. That is regrettable, but as I understand it the legal advice on both sides is robust, and that is what happens in such situations. However, in most other areas —probably all—the discussions, based on good will, are likely to progress well, and I pay tribute, frankly, to the union representatives who have also engaged in those discussions with House management.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I think that people will feel that the Bill is a fraud. I genuinely believe that they will be disappointed that the Government have allowed this to happen, given that the Prime Minister was so forthright about wanting to tackle the abuse of lobbying. A situation in which lobbyists go free while the House agrees to gag people who merely want to exercise their democratic rights before elections is bizarre in the extreme.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a strong point. Does it also concern him that the rich and powerful who dominate the Tory party and the newspapers are completely ungagged, and will remain so in the future?

[John McDonnell]

Indeed. The Bill will have no effect on the abuses that have been listed by my hon. Friends today.

I ask Members to be careful about what they vote for and what they wish for. Part 3 is not merely a naive attempt to improve trade union membership lists. Trade unions already monitor their membership lists, and not a single complaint about discrepancies has been made to the certification officer in 10 years. This is not even just a grubby political stunt on the part of the Government. It is a back-door way of interfering in industrial action.

For years we experienced the problem of minor discrepancies in industrial relations ballots. Thousands would be balloted and thousands would vote in favour of industrial action, but if only three or four names were omitted from the list, employers would rush to court and ballots would be overturned. We tried to amend the existing legislation on five occasions with the aim of correcting the position, and failed. Only last year the courts did correct it, ruling that minor errors or discrepancies in balloting procedures relating to membership lists should no longer be taken into account if they had no effect on the result of the ballot itself. That legal decision was a major breakthrough for trade union rights, but part 3 will enable employers to subvert it through the back door. Employers will now challenge membership lists, because they will still be the basis on which ballots take place.

Government Members—particularly the Liberal Democrats, who may have voted for part 3—possibly think that the measure is innocuous, but it will have consequences for our industrial relations climate. There will be industrial action, and it will be described as wildcat industrial action, because people will not tolerate the interference of employers in the democratic processes of trade unions. It is extraordinary that trade union membership lists are the only lists with which we are dealing. We are not dealing with party membership lists, CBI membership lists, or any other membership lists, and in my view that is evidence that the Bill constitutes a hostile attack on trade unionism in this country.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

Wednesday 11th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr McKenzie]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend.

Recent revelations about blacklisting and everything that is happening in that respect are a worry to many trade union members, who would see these membership lists as being available to be passed around with ease, with all the consequences that that entails. I think that the entire Committee is united in condemning blacklisting, so why are we being asked to assist the ease by which information can be gathered to continue the practice of blacklisting? If hon. Members had seen the trawls that the people who compile these lists go through, they would realise that we are making it very easy to put a list together, pass it on and make money out of branding other people as “trade union activists” and so on. I ask the Government to reconsider this part of the Bill and to adopt our amendments.

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

I think we misinterpreted the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), because what he said was extremely supportive. He went to what my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) described as the crux of the Bill, asking why it is here. The hon. Gentleman was asking his own Front Benchers, “What the hell are we doing?” As my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie) and others have asked, what mischief does this part of the Bill seek to address? I really tried to find out what the Government’s thinking is, so I looked at what they said in the consultation paper, which was published in July. The first reason they put forward for this move was as follows:

“As membership organisations, it is important that trade union decisions reflect the will of all their members.”

If that is the case, does it mean that we are now going to legislate in respect of all membership organisations? Sir Edward, you are a member of the Roman Catholic Church and if we are going to do that, we might well introduce legislation to see whether the Catholic Church is following the laity’s views.

Why does this provision apply to trade unions alone? Next, the Government identify trade unions for this special legislation because:

“Trade union activity has the potential to affect the daily lives of members”.

With the greatest respect, so too does the activity of the Roman Catholic Church, the CBI and the Institute of Directors. So why are we focusing on this particular membership organisation? As has been said, the reason is that this legislation is really about trying to impede the operations of the trade unions in this country. Government Members might argue that this measure has minimum cost and minimum imposition of roles and responsibilities on trade unions. The impact study makes an assessment that there will be only 6p of additional cost, although that is still 6p. However, it also says, straightforwardly, that the risks are that this will displace core trade union work. It will do that; trade unions will have to devote their time and energies to this and it will therefore displace their core trade union work of representing their members. So it is about impeding the real role of trade unions.

[Julie Elliott]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this part of the Bill is unnecessary legislation and that it is just an attack on trade union members going about their daily business and being active trade unionists? It is an attack on ordinary working people standing up for their rights in the workplace.

[John McDonnell]

That is exactly what it is. I am speaking on the clause standing part, as well as to the amendment, Sir Edward, because we have to understand what this clause means. I cannot, for the life of me, interpret it other than in the way my hon. Friend has just done. It is an attack specifically on the role of trade unionists and their rights to fulfil their responsibilities.

We have seen the operation of challenges to membership lists in respect of industrial relations and, in particular, of industrial action being taken and determined by members. The history is that the employers have used the existing legislation and interpreted it so that any minor discrepancy about a membership list is used in a rush to court to seek an injunction to prevent industrial action from taking place. Some examples have been given, but I have been involved in a number of activities associated with trade unions where even though there has been a 99% overwhelming decision in favour of industrial action, one or two members out of thousands have been missed off the ballot and so an injunction has been awarded. Therefore, the industrial action, along with the will of the members, has been prevented from being implemented. We tried to overcome that through legislation in this House—I tried to put such legislation through on three occasions, but it got talked out every time—but we have just overcome it in the courts. We have received a decision in the courts that enables minor infringements not to be taken into account and the decision of the overall will of the members to be acceded to.

However, the Bill opens up a whole new vista of potential legal challenges. As colleagues have said, it relates not only to industrial action, industrial activity, ballots and so on; it could relate to the whole operation of the union. Employers could trawl over membership lists, go off to the certification officer and then we could get to court, where the challenge will be about how the union operates overall. So lawyers will be able to tie up trade unions in legal actions for years to come, preventing them from undertaking what the impact study calls their “core” trade union work of representing members.

I ask Government Members: what is the motivation for this measure? Some of that has leaked out. They have listened to what has happened in recent months—the anger there is among working people about the cuts to their wages, the zero-hour contracts and the undermining of employment rights. People are beginning to react. They do not usually react at the depths of a recession, doing so when they are coming out of one and when the living standards of some are rising. So we are talking about a recovery for the rich but a recession for the rest. That is when people get angry and when industrial action takes place—that is when strikes happen. It is also when trade unions need to be representing their members. So I think this measure is part and parcel of the Government preparing for the potential for industrial activity over this coming period. It is another mechanism by which they will do everything they possibly can to undermine the rights of trade unions and their ability to operate effectively in representing their members. It is so short term, because all it will do is anger people even more and as these impediments build up, although they are relatively minor at first, people will become more angry. Then, we will have wildcat action—action that is uncontrolled—because people are so furious at how they are being treated by their employers in collusion with the Government.

Let me make one final point, because I want to understand. If the argument is that the clause is about ensuring that membership organisations are open, transparent and accurately reflect their members’ views, and if it is about organisations that have an impact on the general life of our society, why does it not refer to the CBI, the Institute of Directors and all the other trade associations? They are membership organisations and they have as much of an effect on the daily lives of our population as trade unions, yet they remain completely unregulated. That portrays to me the in-built bias of this Government against trade unionism and working people. That is why we must vote against clause stand part.

The amendment is moderate, and simply says that if the certification officer identifies a problem we should implement the provision—I have similar amendments on the implementation of the Bill, which we probably will not reach. That is all my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South is saying: if there is a grievance or a problem let us by all means have some action, but not unless a problem is identified. That is a relatively moderate, pragmatic way forward. If the Government do not accept the amendment, that will completely endorse the view that this is bias motivated by prejudice against trade unions and trade unionism.

[Ian Murray]

My hon. Friend is making another compelling speech. He mentions organisations such as the Church, the IOD and the CBI; is he as astonished as I am that while this draconian measure is going through to restrict trade unionism even more in this country the Conservative party will not even tell us how many members it has?

[John McDonnell]

I fear when Governments start seeking to regulate civil society generally. That is what the clause does: it is a step along the path of regulation of wider civil society organisations. What else? The Countryside Alliance? We might be up for that, just to see where the money comes from, but there are a range of organisations whose rights, privileges and privacy we want to be respected for reasons of basic civil liberties. Why are trade unions being singled out in this manner? The Bill is being targeted and comes at a time when the Government are predicting that they will be faced with trade unionists who are very angry about not being able to share in what is supposed to be an economic recovery. It is about the exercise of trade union rights.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) mentioned the legality of the Government’s legislation. Let me be clear that our Governments have been condemned by the International Labour Organisation and other international organisations for two decades now because of their trade union legislation. It is not just about the right to strike; it is about certain basic and fundamental trade union rights. The clause, yet again, imposes further duties that I believe to be completely contrary to ILO conventions. Yet again, this country will be isolated in the world and condemned for its attack on trade union rights, which are incorporated in all those international statutes and conventions as a basic human right.

In summary, that is why I oppose clause stand part and support the moderate, pragmatic amendment. If we reach that stage in our consideration of the Bill, I will discuss the amendments I have proposed, which basically say that if the Government want the legislation—which we do not support—to go forward, they should at least have some form of trigger, such as a complaint or concern that has been raised and assessed. If there has been a complaint and there needs to be further action, fair enough. That is not the case at the moment and I think that this is just biased prejudice against trade unions and trade unionism overall.

[John Cryer]

First, let me say what a compelling speech my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) just made. He made some strong points—this is about the evisceration of the industrial and political opposition over the next few months because the Government can see some serious problems on the horizon emanating from the policies they are pursuing. They want to neutralise any resistance to those policies and their consequences through the Bill and other measures.

I have a series of questions on this clause that I would like the Minister to deal with. My first question has been asked before, but it is specific. What specific complaints about union record keeping have been made and by whom over the last, say, three years? Secondly, as an addendum to that, what evidence is there that unions are not keeping accurate records? As we have heard before, under the 1992 legislation there is already a duty on trade unions to keep their records up to date. What has changed since then? What enormous problems are associated with trade union record keeping that have led the Government to their current position and to change things in such a radical way?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Cryer]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. There is also the situation involving payroll companies. If such a company offers to take over an employer’s payroll responsibilities, the duties to pay pensions, national insurance and sick pay are divested to that payroll company, meaning that that semi-detached element in the workplace is responsible for maintaining many records, which makes keeping everything up to date even more complicated and difficult. Another aspect is the casualisation of the workplace, because there are some sectors of the economy in which full-time permanent employment is almost being abolished. Again, that situation will make it more difficult to comply with the Bill’s strictures.

[John McDonnell]

My hon. Friend makes a crucial point about the difficulty of communicating with trade union members. I have been a branch secretary, so I know that it is difficult enough to communicate with just a branch. The key aspect of the Government’s motivation in previous legislation has been to address balloting procedures, which I understand to a certain extent, because there is a need to ensure that there is an accurate record of membership when taking a ballot. However, what is sinister about the Bill’s proposals, with reference to the Government’s assessment, is that they are about ensuring that the general public and employers are

“confident that voting papers and other communications are reaching union members”.

The Bill therefore covers a wider range of activities than just balloting, so there could be challenges from employers and others about just whether a trade union had adequately communicated with its members, by post or other means, about any matter.

[John Cryer]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether any other section of civil society is as heavily regulated as trade unions. Unions will be subject to even more regulation because every piece of communication with members will be covered by statute, which represents an extraordinary intervention into people’s lives.

Will the Minister tell us how the 1992 Act relates to the Bill, and especially to clause 36, because that Act makes provision for keeping accurate and up-to-date records? Will she tell us what has specifically changed since the implementation of that consolidation Act that has brought about an enormous problem that now must be dealt with?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Doran]

I hope that I took it in good part, Sir Edward.

The decision on the legislation that was to proceed was taken under the process I have mentioned, and everything agreed between the CBI and the TUC was implemented. At its heart was the need to take the heat out of industrial action. We looked at a whole range of areas. One key area was the problem of recognition disputes, when unions had built up a membership in a company and wanted recognition. Many such disputes ended up in the courts and in difficult strikes. We wanted to take the heat out of all areas of conflict. All of that was implemented in the Employment Relations Act 1999. The evidence was a dramatic reduction in the number of strikes—my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South mentioned the number, but I cannot remember—and that has been maintained. I do not think that there is any question about that.

During the Conservative years, and the previous Labour years, to be honest, the level of strikes was far too high. That legislation and that process brought that to an end, and at the time both sides were happy. Even before that legislation was implemented to set in place a process for dealing with recognition disputes, and the effort was to take them out of the courts and minimise conflict, over 1,000 new recognition agreements were signed by both sides.

One of the major problems with this Government is that they have a one-sided approach that demonises trade unions and in every way possible places barriers in the way of the trade union movement. There is no realisation of what happens on the ground. Most trade unions are there not to strike or disrupt the employer, but to protect their members. As part of the process I mentioned, we did a lot of balloting and held focus groups to find out why members signed up to unions. The important thing for most of them was the insurance policy that they got—the fact that the union would support them if there was an argument with their employer, and in particular would pay for the lawyers in an unfair dismissal case, for example. That is what members bought into.

One of my concerns about the Government’s approach is that the harder it becomes for trade unions to operate properly, as trade unions should be allowed to operate in a democratic system, the more members will become tired of the system and have no proper recourse for their grievances. I do not often agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on these issues—

[John McDonnell]

Yes, you do.

[Mr Doran]

I try not to.

[John McDonnell]

Increasingly you do.

[Mr Doran]

My point is that if people see a weakened trade union movement, they will take matters into their own hands. That is a dangerous situation.

Many companies around this country work well with their trade unions and recognise them properly. Most are large; a significant number of FTSE companies, for example, have good relations with trade unions. I remember a number of occasions when unions have been used to lobby Members of Parliament. Once my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) and I made a difficult trip to Sellafield; we were expected to stand on top of a reactor, although we were both too cowardly to do that. We were also gently asked to meet the trade union officials. At that time we were developing an anti-nuclear policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Swinson]

I hope that I can give the hon. Gentleman some reassurance. It is not a question of every single membership entry having to be audited; it is about the process the union has in place for doing so. The certificate needs to be provided to give assurance on that. He also said—a few Members mentioned this—that the proposed powers somehow exist already, but they are actually very narrowly drawn. The certification officer’s power to investigate a complaint by an individual member applies only to that individual’s membership record; it does not extend to other members in the organisation. Indeed, it does not give those who might not be a member of a trade union the ability to complain. Of course, a member might not know that there is a problem with their records. Indeed, if they are not receiving information from the union, they might not know when there is a ballot for a committee, for example.

I will turn now to the specific amendments and respond to some of the points that have been raised. Amendment 103 would remove the annual duty to provide a membership audit certificate. Instead, the certificate would need to be submitted only if a complaint were received by the certification officer and he thought that it was necessary. Amendment 121 would go along with amendment 103 by removing the duty to appoint an assurer. I do not think that the amendments are useful, because they stop the key policy objective. I agree that there is clearly a difference of opinion between both sides of the Committee on the reasonableness of the measure, but that is why the Government do not support the amendments. The current arrangements just do not give that assurance, because they rely on members proactively checking the register. Even if they do check the register, they cannot see all of it and they do not know whether other names and addresses are up to date; neither do they know who should and should not be on the register.

Various Members have mentioned the difficulties of tracking membership. Indeed, the Engineering Employers Federation has commented that trade unions

“do not have a unified way of tracking membership and it remains difficult for them to do so”.

The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development said that

“Unions have stated difficulties at times maintaining the addresses of members”.

Amendment 104 would allow for delaying the submission of a membership audit certificate if the union were appealing. I absolutely understand that unions do not want an assurer to send mistakenly or maliciously a qualified certificate to the certification officer without their knowing about it, but I believe that the amendment is unnecessary and hope to give some reassurance on why. The current drafting states that the assurer will send the copy of the membership audit certificate to the certification officer only after it is provided to the union, which means that the union will already have seen the certificate and had that opportunity to talk with the assurer. Of course, it is worth noting that it is the union that will appoint the assurer, and it has every ability within the agreement it makes in appointing an assurer to say that it would like the opportunity to see the certificate and comment before it is sent off.

[John McDonnell]

I think that most of us are still mystified about the objectives of the clause, so I will put one scenario to the Minister to test its purpose. The clause will enable someone who is not a trade union member—a member of the Conservative party, for example—to contest the membership list. This is about communications between the union and its members, so if the union in the run up to the next general election, say, sends out a letter to its members urging them to vote for the Labour party, the Conservative party member, who is not a member of a trade union, could contest the accuracy of the membership list and, in that way, undermine the trade union’s ability to communicate with its members. That is possible under this legislation, and it betrays its purpose.

[Jo Swinson]

The certificate that will have been issued, and which will be available for any member of the public to look at, will show that the union has a proper process in place for maintaining its membership list. That will give that assurance to anybody who looks at it. It of course will not give the details of the names and addresses of the union members, as some Members seem to have suggested; it will simply give that assurance.

--- Later in debate ---

I agree with all of our amendments, but I urge the Government to look again at amendments 112 and 117 in particular. I am really concerned that the clause has not been thought through and that it has not been written in a practical way that relates to the real world. If legislation is going to work, it has to do those things, and this Bill simply does not pass that test.

[John McDonnell]

I want to follow on from the excellent exposé by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) of the rationale for the concerns of the Opposition and others. To be frank, I thought that we had won this argument. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) has said, we had a debate on blacklisting several months ago, in which there was cross-party understanding of the vulnerability that people feel in the work force. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central has said, that vulnerability relates not only to blacklisting, but to victimisation.

I raised the issue in 1997 and in 2003. We got some legislation that was not effective and then I convened the first meeting of the Blacklist Support Group, which brought together in 2008 all those workers with blacklisting cases that they wanted to pursue. One of the breakthroughs for us was the raids undertaken by the Information Commissioner, under the Data Protection Act, that exposed the scale of blacklisting, with nearly 4,000 people on at least one list. People are anxious for us to ensure that any future legislation does not set up a system that could make them vulnerable again.

It could be argued that some of our amendments are a belt-and-braces approach, but this is about restoring confidence. The tragedy in the past—I do not mean to be hypercritical of any organisation by saying this—was that it was not just employers exchanging blacklist information. We now know that it was also coming from the police and security services and, actually, some renegade trade unionists, who passed information to employers who then went on to compile a blacklist. That is why, if we are to establish a new system that gives the certification officer a wide range of responsibilities and that appoints—in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery)—the bizarrely named assurer and inspectors, we need to ensure that there is a belt-and-braces approach so that they are properly tasked with abiding by the duty of confidentiality. That is why our amendments are so critical.

Amendment 107 states that it is important that the assurers

“have a duty of confidentiality to the trade union”.

It is critical that the trade union has confidence that those officers have such a duty. It is also critical, as amendment 108 sets out, that when those individuals are appointed, their qualifications are known and they are qualified to do the job. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck does get the job and the wage from Len McCluskey. I am sure that he is completely qualified to do the job. There needs to be some assurance that the people who are appointed are qualified to do the job. In addition, there must be a process by which assurers can be dismissed if they breach confidentiality. That is also dealt with in the Opposition amendments, which would assure people that their concerns about the use of this information for blacklisting and victimisation are taken seriously in the Bill.

I share the concerns about line 28 on page 41, which states that the duty of confidentiality involves taking “all reasonable steps”. That is not acceptable because it is not powerful enough. Amendment 118 would replace those words with “all necessary steps”. We must ensure that any action that is taken goes beyond reasonableness; it must be necessary and effective.

Further down page 41, the circumstances are set out in which a member’s name and address are permitted to be provided. The list includes the member’s consent, but that seems to be overridden by a range of other situations in which the certification officer may provide names and addresses.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I commend my hon. Friend for the work on blacklisting that he has done in Parliament. Is he as concerned as I am about proposed new section 24ZG(3)(d) to the Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which states:

“where it is required for the purposes of the discharge of any of the functions of the assurer”?

That seems to be very wide-ranging.

[John McDonnell]

I have no idea what that means. It has such a range of interpretation that it gives the assurer the ability to provide information to virtually anyone for any purpose. It will undermine the confidence of workers who have experienced blacklisting or victimisation and workers who are currently at risk if the Bill is passed in this form.

One of the reasons why there may be a disclosure of information is

“where it is required for the purposes of the investigation of crime or criminal proceedings.”

In the real world of industrial relations, many Opposition Members have seen a crime being alleged because of the process of picketing. Because the list includes the investigation of an alleged crime, the certification officer will be able to hand over the names and addresses of pickets who are accused of action that could be construed to be illegal. That will undermine people’s ability to exercise their democratic rights as trade unionists by undertaking picketing or other forms of industrial action.

I am anxious about the whole clause. It flies in the face of the assurances that have been given in the House that blacklisting and victimisation will be addressed. People have been blacklisted or victimised simply because they are trade unionists or health and safety representatives. On the blacklist that we discovered, names had been misinterpreted and the wrong people had been identified. Some people had been blacklisted simply because they had undertaken political activities unrelated to trade union activities.

The Opposition amendments simply try to gain the assurance that a duty of confidentiality will be placed on the officers who will implement the new regime. I do not find that to be excessive. It will not introduce burdens on trade unions, the certification officer or the assurer. It will simply clarify their legal duties. One of their legal duties must be to protect the information that they are inspecting or, to use the new verb, “assuring” as a result of this legislation.

I urge the Government to accept the amendments. I hope they do, but even if they cannot, they can at least take the spirit of what Opposition Members have said and return with their own amendments to ensure that there is a duty of confidentiality on the officers concerned; that the qualifications can be properly examined when the assurer is appointed; that assurers can be dismissed if there is a breakdown of confidentiality; and that there is absolute security for the information the assurer guards and controls on behalf of the trade union.

[Jo Swinson]

I welcome the debate on clause 37 and the amendments and I shall respond to some of the remarks hon. Members have made. Clause 37 gives credibility to the maintenance of trade union membership registers to members, employers and the wider public.

As hon. Members know, unions are already required to report on their financial affairs. They need to appoint an auditor, which gives the accounts authority. When a large union submits its membership on its certificate, the Bill provides the same kind of independent assurance that is provided in financial affairs. For the larger unions, that assurance needs to be independent if it is to be credible, which is why trade unions of more than 10,000 members must appoint a qualified independent person to provide the membership audit certificate, which will state whether, in the assurer’s opinion, the union’s systems are satisfactory in relation to compliance with the duties to maintain an accurate register—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Sheffield (Angela Smith) wants to intervene, I am happy for her to do so—[Interruption.] I apologise if I did not get the hon. Lady’s exact constituency name quite right. I should have referred to her as the Member for Barnsley and Penistone or whatever. She had a slightly different constituency in the previous Parliament.

The clause provides an order-making power for the Secretary of State to define who may act as an assurer. Somebody cannot act as an assurer if the union has grounds to believe they would not act competently, or that their independence might be called into question. For example, union officers or employers may not act as an assurer. In practice, the assurer will need to be somebody who can understand how records are stored, collected and updated, so that they can provide the audit certificate. They might want to know how the union collects new member data and how members are reminded to keep their details up to date—the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) described how a union with which she had been involved did that regularly. The assurer might also want to know how unions update the register once changes are notified.

Unions will need to set out in their rules the process for appointing and removing an assurer. We have provided flexibility for the union, but certain provisions will apply regardless. An assurer may be removed by resolution, or be automatically re-appointed unless one of various specified conditions are met. However, it will always be up to the union to have the final say—it can appoint or remove an assurer by resolution.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Susan Elan Jones]

Happily, I am not responsible for what people write on “ConservativeHome.”

The Prime Minister once spoke the rhetoric of a big society and a coming together of hearts and minds, yet today we are sitting in this Chamber to discuss a Bill that could mean that a consortium of cancer charities has problems campaigning with realistic staffing levels whereas pro-tobacco lobbyist Lynton Crosby has nothing more to worry about than how much tobacco to put in his pipe. This remains a calamitous, bureaucratic Bill and should be replaced by one that deals with the villains of the piece and does not attack the voluntary sector.

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

I just want simple answers to simple questions. I apologise for being absent from the debate, but I have been at a Delegated Legislation Committee.

When the Minister responds, may we have some clarity about the time scale for the amendments he is going to introduce? If the Report stage is to be on 8 October, it would be invaluable for Members to have them at least a week before so that we can consider them properly. It would also be useful if, in advance of the drafting discussions, the Minister could set out the general principles on which the amendments will be based. That will at least give us some early warning of what it is likely to look like.

[Mr Allen]

Does my hon. Friend also think that it is important that the people affected by the clause, who were not consulted on the original drafting, should also be engaged in the process so that any obvious mistakes can be corrected before the amendments come to us?

[John McDonnell]

That is my third point. If we are seeking to reach consensus, it is critical that all parties in this House are involved in those discussions and also that all parties outside the House that have expressed an interest or a concern are consulted. I am not happy with the whole process—I think we are procedurally in a mess.

[Wayne David]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right in what he is saying on consultation. It is important that the Electoral Commission is added to the list of consultees, because it has the expertise and is charged with the responsibility of implementing the Bill.

[John McDonnell]

Yes, that was my fourth point. We have to dig ourselves out of this procedural hole and try to ensure that we are not in the same wrangle when we come back on 8 October. It is important that the Electoral Commission is involved.

It would be invaluable if, once the amendment was drafted, the Select Committee had the opportunity to consider it in some detail. The Committee has built up expertise on the Bill over some time and the amendments it has proposed have meant that we have been able to have a proper and constructive debate.

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is making a set of important points about process rather than principle, which is what he normally covers, and they are extremely valuable. Does he agree, in asking ask the Minister to set out the principles on which his proposed changes for introduction on Report will be based, that they should be principles for how he wants to change the status quo rather than how he wants to tinker with the Bill’s deeply flawed provisions?

[John McDonnell]

The reason I want some general principles set out is that I, like many others, am completely confused about where we are at—what the Government’s intentions are, and the implications of the Bill. I have spoken three times in the series of debates starting with Second Reading, so I do not want to repeat the arguments that I have advanced, but I think that people are genuinely confused. If we arrive in this place on 8 October without that full process, people will be equally confused, and either we shall be faced with a rush to pass bad legislation, or, if we have unfortunately failed to reach consensus, people outside this place will—let us put it this way—not hold us in the regard in which we should be held on something like this.

I make this plea to the Minister: at least get some clarity today before we move forward. It is fortuitous that we have the conference break; that gives us the opportunity to get that right and to be fully inclusive in the process from here on in.

[Nia Griffith]

I shall speak to amendments 62, 64 and 167 and new clause 9.

I feel that I am speaking in a bit of a vacuum. I can speak to what is already on paper, and I can speak to our amendments, but we have no idea what the Government will bring forward as an amendment, and it seems to me a very higgledy-piggledy way to deal with legislation.

The real issue, of course, is that there has not been any consultation. There has been no time for anyone to look at this in advance. I had the privilege yesterday of meeting a number of third-sector organisations in Cardiff—some Wales-only organisations, and some that also operate UK-wide but quite properly have offices in Cardiff or other parts of Wales, which facilitates their engagement with the National Assembly for Wales. It is extremely important to consult—even to speak today, I found it essential to consult, listen to and read a lot of the material that those groups have kindly produced in a very short time indeed.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2013 Commons Chamber

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

To be frank, I find this whole debate deeply worrying and depressing. We must remind ourselves that only a few years ago the House was brought into contempt in the eyes of the general public because of the expenses scandal. Even those of us who were completely clean were cast in the same light. For most of us, being elected was one of the proudest moments of our lives, but after the expenses scandal we almost had to apologise for being an MP. Then we legislated, we had an election, large numbers of new people came into the House, and we thought we had put the issue behind us. However, the Prime Minister was right to say that the next scandal would be about lobbying, which is why I welcomed the introduction of this Bill.

It was most depressing and angry-making—I was furious—when I saw the films of Members of Parliament offering their services to lobbyists for money, so when the Government said they were going to introduce legislation, I did not mind so much about the speed as I wanted it done quickly but effectively. It is, however, acutely depressing that this Bill does nothing of the sort. By excluding the vast proportion of lobbyists—the in-house lobbyists—we are making ourselves a laughing stock.

Let me follow on from what the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) said. I have experience of in-house lobbyists. In my constituency, the third runway campaign, BAA, did not use external lobbyists; it used generally in-house lobbyists who not only lobbied but had passes to the Department for Transport. They were not bothered about meeting Ministers; they wanted to meet junior civil servants who wrote the projections of growth in passenger traffic and so on. That is how effective they were. When he was the Minister responsible for aviation, Chris Mullin asked how many BAA staff were in the Department for Transport on a daily basis. On the day he left, he was told that dozens of people had passes to come to the Department to influence people. I think that is corruption in any other terms, and the sort of thing we want to tackle.

The hon. Member for St Albans gave a brilliant speech and some examples of what goes on. Bizarrely, however, the Bill does not tackle that level of corruption but gags the very people from whom we want to hear. It even gags them during the general election period when they can be most influential. I find the proposed legislation not only contradictory but shameful, and it is important to listen to what my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) said. We should stand back for the next period, listen and take evidence from organisations and individuals with experience in this field, and come to some agreement about the way forward.

If we cannot reach cross-party agreement on this issue, the Bill will not stand up in the long term. Once again the House will be brought into disrepute because we will be on the side of protecting lobbyists while trying to gag those who, as representatives of civil society, want their voice properly heard. I urge the Government to think again. Let us bring the parties together outside this Chamber and have another discussion about a proper way forward and a realistic timetable.

We can still meet a timetable that enacts legislation before the next general election, but we need the next couple of months for careful consideration and the proper involvement of all those who will be affected. The only people who seem to be involved at the moment are professional lobbying associations, not those I think actually deserve to be heard. If the Bill is passed in its current form, it will go down as a Bill drafted by a lobbyist for certain types of lobbyists, and they will be those lobbyists who try to maximise their profit.

[Paul Flynn]

I am enjoying my hon. Friend’s speech and am grateful to him for giving way. He expresses the anger felt on both sides of the House about the potentially corrupting activity of lobbyists over many years. Can he think of any demand from anyone who believes that the next scandal in the country will involve Oxfam, the British Legion and Save the Children?

[John McDonnell]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The Leader of the House would win the respect of the House if he took time to bring those organisations in to hear from them. He argues that gagging is not within the legislation. The impact of the legislation per se will not gag those organisations, but self-gagging will take place, because, as other hon. Members have said, people will not want to risk their charity’s or organisation’s funds on lawyers to advise them or to defend them when things go wrong. I therefore ask the Government to stand back, pause and consult, and introduce adequate legislation on which we can reach consensus. I am sure we can do it.

Part 3 of the Bill is about trade unions. The reality is that, since Mrs Thatcher’s day, the Conservatives have wanted to introduce legislation that bans trade unions, but have realised they could not get it through the House. They have therefore successively introduced legislation to ensure that they impede the activities of trade unions as best they can. That is why we have had extensive discussions on the technicalities of balloting, registrations and so on.

The measure is yet another way in which the Conservatives are trying to encumber trade unions with unnecessary bureaucracy to impede them in representing their members. Unions already have membership lists, which they must regularly update, because if they ballot for industrial action or on consultations, they must ensure the list are accurate—otherwise, they will be in court yet again, because employers can take legal action against them to prevent industrial action or any other form of action before strike action.

The legislation is therefore unnecessary, but I find it offensive because it applies only to trade unions. Why just trade unions? The Leader of the House’s argument is that trade unions influence public policy, but so does the CBI, the Institute of Directors and a large number of organisations that are not encompassed by the legislation. That betrays the real agenda: the measure is an attack on trade unions—yet again—by the Government.

I hope the Government see sense on that measure. All they will do is introduce another mechanism that sours the industrial relations climate in this country—another opportunity for litigation, meaning more time spent in the courts. That does not enhance the relationship between workers and employers, or the development of industrial, manufacturing or other economic policy by bringing people together; it simply increases antagonism. I believe it will therefore be counter-productive. I urge the Government to think again on the measure. It is petty, and they are introducing it now simply for short-term party advantage following debates before the summer recess. The measure will do nothing for the Government’s standing or for the relationship between trade unions and employers.

Finally, this is no way to legislate. I fully agree with much of what has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House on that. This is no way to introduce a major constitutional reform. At the end of the day, if it is forced through by the Government, we will be back to amend it. However, while it is in place, it will undermine democratic engagement in this country across the piece.

HEALTH

John McDonnell Excerpts

Thursday 20th December 2012 Commons Chamber

Jim Dowd (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

Traditionally, Members raise constituency concerns in the House’s pre-recess Adjournment debates, and I shall raise a subject that has provoked not anger, but fury, and a feeling of unfairness and injustice among my constituents such as I have not known in the 20 years that I have served as a Member of Parliament and the 20 years before that when I was a member of Lewisham borough council. That subject is the appointment in July of a trust special administrator to the South London Healthcare NHS Trust. The TSA was appointed under the unsustainable providers regime, a provision of the National Health Service Act 2006 and amended, I think, in 2009. South London Healthcare NHS Trust does not include Lewisham. It covers the adjoining area, and principally comprises the Queen Elizabeth hospital in Woolwich, the Queen Mary hospital in Sidcup and the Princess Royal university hospital in Farnborough.

This is the first time the Department has used these provisions, so the step taken is ground-breaking, pioneering—

John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)

- Hansard -

And privatising.

Jim Dowd

- Hansard - - Excerpts

Yes, I think that is part of the TSA’s agenda. The way the Department has engineered this situation is disgraceful, dishonourable, disreputable and downright dishonest—and if we have not had enough alliteration, I could add devious, as well as underhand and fraudulent.

Hon. Members will not be surprised to learn that I am no great supporter of what the TSA has done. The Department is attempting to pervert the process because the major impact of what the administrator in the adjoining trust is doing is on Lewisham hospital. The draft report is a considerable document that has cost an awful lot of money and made an awful lot of money for a number of consultants, including McKinsey, KPMG and PricewaterhouseCoopers—they always seem to do well out of these things. The public consultation on the draft report has closed and the Secretary of State is due to reach a decision. The final report from the TSA will be presented in early January and the Secretary of State will be making a decision in February. I appeal today for the Secretary of State to suspend the entire process, because it has been perverted in the way that I have outlined.

I do not hold the TSA personally responsible. I have met him on a few occasions and find him to be a reasonable and rational person. However, I know that the devastating impact of his report is on Lewisham hospital—the impact there is beyond anything that will happen at Queen Mary’s, the Princess Royal or the Queen Elizabeth. The report will result in the closure of the accident and emergency department, and all medical and surgical emergency care, all maternity services, all children’s services and all critical care will cease on the Lewisham hospital site.

I had an Adjournment debate on this subject a couple of weeks ago. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock) and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) both raised the issue in the Opposition-day debate on health just last week. If I were to raise this matter every day in this House, I could not adequately reflect the burning resentment and anger that it has caused in the community in Lewisham, as the injustice is so severe. The Department could not appoint a special administrator to look at Lewisham Hospital NHS Trust, because it is a solvent, well-managed trust meeting all its performance and financial targets. What the Department has done is appoint an administrator next door and then, under the bogus and completely facile assumption that everything connects with everything else, focused on Lewisham hospital. That is what is completely devious about this.

At the public meetings the TSA has held on the matter, he has shown a little film setting out what he is trying to do. It included him quoting this age-old homily, “If your domestic finances are in mess, clearly you have to do something about it.” I do not dispute that the finances of the South London Healthcare NHS Trust are in a mess. At the meeting in Sydenham one of my constituents said to him, “If your domestic finances are in a mess, you may well have to do something about it, but that does not include breaking into next door’s house and nicking all their stuff.” That is precisely what is happening under this system. This procedure is being used for the first time. If it is used in that way, the Department will set a template for the rest of the country. It will then, in theory, be able to appoint a TSA anywhere and his or her remit will be such that they can look anywhere; they will not just focus on the area or trust they have been established to look into.

The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State repeatedly parrot four tests for reorganisations and reconfigurations. The first is that they should have general practitioner and clinical commissioning group support. The second is that they should have public engagement. That is a strange use of the vague term “public engagement”; they do not specify “public support”. The third is that the proposals have to be clinically sound. The fourth is that they have to increase patient choice. None of those factors exists in the recommendations for Lewisham hospital, and the TSA does not even maintain that they do. He openly admits that the proposals will reduce patient choice sharply. The clinicians, the hospital board, the CCG, and various groups of GPs across Lewisham and beyond all say that the recommendations are a threat to the standard of care that the people of Lewisham can expect and all are opposed to the TSA’s proposals. I say to the Secretary of State, via the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), that he should abandon the scheme now, as the way it has been undertaken is clearly flawed, and he should protect the services that my constituents and people across south-east London have a right to expect.

--- Later in debate ---

Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

It is a pleasure to follow my near neighbour and constituency MP, the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), in this debate, and I join him in celebrating the 25th anniversary of Brent pensioners forum, and that of St Luke’s hospice, which is on the border of our two constituencies.

May I pay tribute to the late Betty Geller who sadly died in the early hours of Sunday morning? Betty was a leading light of the Conservative Friends of Israel, Harrow East Conservative association and, most particularly, the campaign for a fitting tribute for Bomber Command and its veterans. Sadly, her husband died some 30 years ago—a premature death that was probably as a result of strain put on him during the war. I was privileged to attend Betty’s funeral on Monday morning, and it is fitting to pay tribute to her in the House. Sadly, she did not live to hear the Prime Minister’s announcement that, at last, her husband and all those who put their lives on the line to allow this country to be free from fascism are to be honoured.

I want to take this opportunity to mention some of the problems caused by the use of pre-packed sales when companies enter administration, and the related pre-packed phoenix companies that can be created. It is right to encourage and promote entrepreneurship in this country. Indeed, in this tough economic climate we desperately need entrepreneurs who will put their spirit and creativity into protecting jobs that the UK needs. In some cases, however, it appears that the law is being abused by unscrupulous company directors for their own purposes at the expense of hard-working employees. I have heard of a number of examples of that, and it gives me no pleasure to note that one such case comes from my own constituency.

On 16 June 1997, Medi-Vial Ltd was founded. By 2008, because of the financial crisis, the company had fallen into difficulties and sought to manipulate its employees into working for a period of time without pay. The 55 members of staff, who were naturally desperate to protect their employment, took the directors at their word in the hope of securing the company’s long-term future and ultimately obtaining the money they were owed. On 3 August 2008, Medi-Vial was liquidated and the entire work force was left without work—except for the directors, Mr and Mrs O’Connor.

I am able to say that with confidence because on 2 September 2008, Mr and Mrs O’Connor established Vial Manufacturing Ltd in what one presumes was a pre-packed sale. They were able to secure all the assets for the phoenix company, without the liabilities of the debts such as the money owed to the employees. So well did that work and so easy was it to achieve that they went on to establish Glass Vials and Closures Ltd on 27 October 2011. Once again, that was preceded by the liquidation of their previous company.

Although I have no details about the second and third companies, I can provide greater insight into the first. Many of its 55 employees spoke English as a second language, and that lack of proficiency in English made it easier for the directors to make excuses and avoid explaining why wages were not being paid. My constituent, Mr Pacey, was an employee of Medi-Vial who went to great efforts both during and after its liquidation to obtain justice for him and his colleagues. It is worth noting that he went to a list of agencies and individuals as part of his campaign. He won an employment tribunal relating to the compensation of his earnings. He also took the matter to the police, the Insolvency Service, my predecessor as MP, the Serious Fraud Office and others.

None of those institutions could offer any remedy whatever—hon. Members can imagine how frustrating that was to Mr Pacey and the other employees, who obviously had a problem seeing their previous employers go on to operate a new business just one month later, in the same practice, on the same premises, using the same equipment, employing the same management, using the same suppliers and having the same customers. The only difference was that the employees had all lost their jobs.

I have previously brought the matter to Ministers’ attention. In January, the then Minister with responsibility for employment relations, consumers and postal affairs, now Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, informed the House:

“Having taken account of all the issues…the Government will not be seeking to introduce new…controls on pre-packs at this time”.

He continued by assuring the House that:

“The Insolvency Service, an Executive agency of BIS, already monitors compliance by insolvency practitioners”.—[Official Report, 26 January 2012; Vol. 539, c. 23WS.]

The overall benefits of pre-pack sales are doubtless genuine and substantial. Statistics show that all employees are transferred to the new company in 92% of pre-pack cases, compared with 65% of employee transfers in a business sale. That is to be welcomed, but we must not turn a blind eye to cases in which directors deliberately abuse the process.

In those circumstances, insolvency practitioners are required to report the directors’ conduct to the Insolvency Service and suggest that they should be disqualified from being involved in the management of the company, but that system does not appear to be working, as is suggested by declining disqualification rates in the past decade. In 2002, 45% of reports from insolvency practitioners resulted in a disqualification, but by 2011, only 21% did.

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has said that legislation is not the right option for solving the problem, but will the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills explore other measures? It is largely a matter of ensuring that we prevent those who abuse their position from doing so, but in order to protect the benefits to the system, I suggest that extra resources are needed so that the Insolvency Service can concentrate its efforts on disqualification. It could introduce an electronic system so that insolvency practitioners can submit reports online. In making those recommendations, I am conscious that we should not attack those who, through no fault of their own, place their companies into administration and wish to carry on their business—on the contrary, I have every sympathy for people who seek to create wealth and jobs—but the key point is that we cannot allow people to abuse their position and their employees.

I conclude, Mr Deputy Speaker, by wishing you, the staff of the House, all colleagues, the staff of my office, and Members who have given me support in the past few days, and, in particular, my wife, who has been long-suffering for many years, a very happy Christmas. I wish everyone a happy, peaceful, prosperous and healthy new year, and trust we can look forward to returning to the House and enjoying many such debates in future.

John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)

- Hansard -

I wish to draw attention to the mismanagement and—some fear—worse of contracts by Hillingdon council and to call on the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to send in commissioners to take control of the council, clean up its affairs and restore confidence in local government in my area. For some time, I have raised in the House my constituents’ concerns about the administrative competence and probity of Hillingdon council, but recent events have confirmed the need for more serious and urgent action.

The recent background is as follows. Two years ago, I learned of Hillingdon council’s proposal to demolish a residential home for the elderly in my constituency called Triscott House and to rebuild it as a modern elderly care facility. The elderly residents were decanted to other establishments, and the new facility was to open in September 2011, but the unit was not ready. Many of the elderly people who had been allocated a place in the new residential home were promised that there would be only a short delay. Ten months later, in July 2012, the home was still not open, and I was contacted by the families of the elderly people who were promised a place. The situation was extremely distressing. A lady in her 90s, with all her belongings packed in packing cases, was waiting to move, in tears. She had been promised, month after month, that her move was imminent. Others in their 80s and 90s were equally upset at the delay. I made representations to the council on behalf of them and their worried families. I, too, was promised that the situation was being resolved and each month told that the move was to take place. Eventually, the new facility opened, after a 14-month delay and dreadful distress caused to my constituents.

Rumours were flying in the area about the delay, and I called for an independent investigation into the catastrophic failure of the council to deliver the new facility on time. The council refused. There was coverage in the local press, and after that I was sent anonymously information on the cause of the delay. Information is difficult to retrieve from Hillingdon council because the administration places any reports that expose failings or poor administration—or worse—in the secret element of its cabinet meetings. It argues that this is done on grounds of commercial confidentiality, but it is certain that it is to cover up incompetence and possibly worse. In this case, the information I received confirmed that the delay to the new elderly care facility was because of a dispute with the contractor for the project.

The contractor was a company undertaking another contract for the council that required additional expenditure. The contractor was told to load the cost of that additional work on to the bill for Triscott House, the residential home for the elderly, and then told to charge the amount as “design fees”. Effectively, this was laundering money from one contract to another to the builder. Other works were undertaken by the contractor on other sites, it appears without contracts, and also charged to the Triscott elderly care home account, again as design fees.

Major contracts are approved either by the leader of the council or a cabinet member, and the responsibility for overseeing the performance of council officers in relation to such projects lies with the leader of the council or cabinet members. The question I have been asked by residents is what those people were doing when all this was going on.

After the exposure of the Triscott House fiasco in the local press, the floodgates opened, with information being sent anonymously or by residents about other council contracts. The information revealed that the new swimming pool leisure centre, recently constructed in my constituency at a cost of £30 million, began construction without a contract, only by exchange of letters of intent. Now the centre has sprung leaks, and without a contract the council is exposed to the cost of repairs.

Five years ago, and again in 2010, I raised the disgracefully poor performance of the council contractor with regard to the repair and refurbishment of Avondale flats in my area, which resulted in one of my constituents, Mr Bernard Fagan, being injured and then compensated by the council. It has now been revealed that, as we suspected, there were irregularities in the award and administration of these housing maintenance contracts. They do not comply with council standing orders.

Complaints have repeatedly been made about the delays to adaptations funded by the disability facilities grants. Concerns have now been raised that there were irregularities in the process for awarding those contracts. Another Hillingdon resident has contacted me because he has challenged the council over its expenditure of £1.17 million on three consultants since April 2010, which the council legal services department has now confirmed was without tendering, with no specification for the works and with no contracts.

I have raised these issues with my local councillors in the ward I live in, but they are unable to respond to me as virtually all these issues have been forced on to the secret part of the cabinet agenda by the ruling councillors. My local councillors have been threatened with the criminal law if they discuss matters with me. However, my ward councillor has informed me that he has written to the chief executive, the borough solicitor and the leader of the council to urge that the district auditor and the police are now brought in to investigate these activities. So far he has received a truculent reply from the leader of the council, claiming that it is an attack on staff. It is not an attack on staff: it is an attempt to hold councillors and senior well-paid officers to account.

The situation has gone beyond anything that is acceptable. Up to £50 million of work and contracts are now associated with irregularities in Hillingdon. My constituents and local tax payers are suffering now and cannot wait any longer for redress. At meeting after meeting, residents are alleging backhanders, brown envelopes and various fiddles. I have no answer for them. We need action now, and that is why I am urging the Secretary of State to send in commissioners to clean up this mess. Before I came to this place, I was in local government for 20 years. I have not seen anything on this scale since the 1980s, when some activities caused so much concern in local government. There may be reasons why contracts were not awarded and why a £30 million swimming pool was done with a letter of intent. If those reasons are valid, then fair enough. However, my understanding is that they have opened up the council to real risk. The scale of mismanagement is appalling.

People know me in this House for my independence of mind. I do not care whether this council is controlled by Labour, the Conservatives or Liberal Democrats. If this was happening under any political administration, I would be saying the same thing. We need action now. We cannot rely on the existing administration to tackle these issues. That is why I think the drastic step of the Secretary of State sending in commissioners to clean this stable out, which I have never called for before anywhere, is absolutely essential if we are to retain any confidence in local government and local administration in my community.

Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

It is always a pleasure to speak in these end-of-term Adjournment debates. Their value has just been aptly demonstrated by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who has sent a chilling note through the Chamber, and a warning call that I hope the authorities will listen to. It is always a great pleasure to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Mr Amess), with his tour de force of constituency issues. Sadly, I can take no pleasure in having to raise in this House access to flood insurance and support for flood-hit local authorities yet again.

Last night, we saw torrential rain across the south-west cause considerable damage to businesses and homes, and disruption on many key travel routes. In my constituency, the villages of Par, Bugle, St Blazey, Gorran Haven and Mevagissey have been flooded again. Across Cornwall, other communities in Polbathic, Altarnun, St Keverne and Gunwalloe have all been hit too. This is not uncommon for the people of Cornwall—just four weeks ago we were hit with flooding. The House may remember that shortly after the general election in 2010 Cornwall was hit with serious flooding too, occasioning the Prime Minister to join me in some of the communities I have just mentioned.

I would like to take this opportunity to extend my thanks and give praise to the work of the emergency services overnight—the firefighters, the police, ambulance workers across Cornwall and the south-west, and the 100 Cornwall council staff—who were out all night helping people to move to safety, and trying to minimise the damage to properties and to life. However, we are not out of the woods yet. The Met Office and the Environment Agency are predicting continued severe weather in the south-west. The EA currently has 19 flood warnings and 52 flood alerts across the region—stark warnings about large swathes of the south-west being at imminent flood risk due to the saturation levels already in the ground.

It is clear that we cannot always build flood defences that will protect people against all eventualities. I am sure that if the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) was in his place—he is an assiduous campaigner on environmental issues—he would agree that with climate change we will see increasingly unpredictable weather across our country for years to come. However, we in this House should be able to ensure that everybody has access to insurance when the worst happens. That sounds very simple, but the Government, flood groups and insurers have been grappling with the problem for a long time and seem no closer to resolving it. The typical cost of flood damage to a home is approximately £30,000, and approximately 200,000 homes are at risk of flooding.

The last Government agreed a statement of principles—a five-year agreement—that meant that flood insurance had to be included in house insurance. It was a worthy goal and a good step forward, but it was not perfect. For example, it did not apply to homes built after October 2009 and, more importantly, made little attempt to help those in the severest flood-risk areas, which was bewildering, frankly. Despite that, however, that statement of principles was a worthy effort to ensure that when flooding hit a community, people were able to rebuild their lives. Unfortunately, it expires next June, and at the moment the House is yet to see any concrete proposals for how this important issue will be dealt with after that point. Communities across the country, including those that I represent, are already struggling to get affordable flood-risk insurance, even though it might technically be available. I urge my right hon. Friend to look into this issue and ensure that the proposals come forward in a timely way and can be adequately debated by the House.

I have raised before my concerns about the Bellwin scheme—the threshold at which central Government support comes in to help local authorities hit by flooding. In Cornwall council’s case, the existing Bellwin scheme has a threshold of 0.2%, which is currently £1.41 million, as the amount it must defray before any assistance is forthcoming from central Government. This scheme is outdated and does not seem to make any allowance for the new unitary authorities. If Cornwall still had a two-tier local authority system, that threshold would be just £58,000. That, coupled with tight rules limiting funding to the additional costs incurred in dealing with the immediate emergency only, basically means that the likelihood of an emergency incurring eligible expenditure greater than the threshold is now significantly less than if the two-tier were still in place. We need to modernise and update the Bellwin scheme. Cornwall is also a fire and rescue authority, but the scheme does not factor in those parts of the country where the principal local authority is on a unitary basis and also the fire and rescue authority.

I turn to the final reason why I would like my right hon. Friend to investigate whether the Bellwin scheme can be reconsidered. Why is the dedicated schools grant used in the calculation of when a threshold is reached by a local authority? It is another instance of where the Bellwin scheme has not kept pace with the change in how local government across our nation is administered. At the moment, Cornwall council estimates repair costs of £2.5 million on the highways alone. When flooding occurs, it is not only a threat to life, but it destroys homes, wrecks businesses and leaves a significant clear-up operation in its wake, and that operation often falls to the local authority to fund.

The biggest Christmas present for all those across the country facing flooding risk would be to ensure that, as we go into next year, flood insurance is available and affordable, and that, when floods hit, local authorities have the support they need from the House and the Government to ensure that the clean-up can happen in the swiftest possible way.

--- Later in debate ---

The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

The range of subjects we have heard about this afternoon is unparalleled, from dogs that teach children to the merits of funding trips for council leaders to spa towns. I will try to respond to the individual points Members have made but, given the time constraints, will focus on those who are in still in the Chamber.

The contribution we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) contained an unparalleled range of issues. Were I to address them all, there would be no time left to respond to any of the other contributions. I hope that he has been able to get all his concerns off his chest. It will probably be simplest if I draw his speech to the attention of all Departments, because it contained something for them all, from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the Department of Health, the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. I would love to spend more time on that, but I hope he will understand that time constraints prevent me from doing so.

I thank the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) for giving me notice of the issue that she wanted to raise about judicial reviews. She said that they come thick and fast. Indeed, the Government have found that since 1974 the number of them has risen from 160 to 11,000 last year, so they are coming thicker and faster year on year. We want to address that. She expressed concerns about the consultation, but I hope that she will none the less participate in it, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), who said that he would do so. The purpose of the consultation, among other things, is to hear Members’ views. The hon. Lady might simply provide it with a copy of today’s Hansard so that it can refer to the important points that she made and the experience on which she has drawn to highlight her concerns. The Government are embarking on this with an open mind in seeking to address the balance between reducing the burdens on public services and promoting access to justice and the rule of law.

The hon. Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) raised very effectively the issue of visas for Chernobyl children. The Deputy Speaker who was in the Chair earlier was described as Father Christmas in that he was able to offer speaking opportunities to all Members this afternoon. I am afraid that I cannot bear the gift that my hon. Friend would like, which is the extension or renewal of the scheme to support Chernobyl children. He will be aware that in November 2010 the Government set out their intention to stop funding that scheme, although they have agreed to provide a total of £200,000 in the last year that it will run. I will put to the FCO his request that the Home Office and the Department for International Development liaise to see whether there is a way in which they can move forward collectively on this.

The hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) raised several issues, including the House business committee, a matter that is still ongoing and on which progress is being made. He welcomed the medals that will be given to those on the Arctic convoys who supported and saved our country at a very difficult time. He raised concerns about Atos Healthcare that I suspect would be echoed by many Members in all parts of the House. In his case, he focused on the length of time that it is taking to process appeals. Delays that run into 57 weeks are clearly unacceptable, and that must be addressed. He expressed concern about deaf children in relation to the personal independence payment and said that it might be a step backwards for them. Although he is not in his place, I urge him to raise that with the Department for Work and Pensions to see what its response is.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark talked about visa renewals and the so-called premium service whereby people pay a substantial sum of money to ensure, theoretically, that their visa renewal is dealt with more quickly. Unfortunately, all too often their experience is different, and if something about their visa needs further work they end up going back into the slow lane with everyone else and therefore derive no benefit from having paid a premium. He identified a solution that I will draw to the attention of the Minister for Immigration, who, I am sure, would want to draw it to the attention of the UK Border Agency. My right hon. Friend welcomed the announcement on the Arctic convoy medals, expressed concerns about judicial reviews, and finished with a quote from Charles Dickens.

The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) raised his concern that the criminal injuries compensation scheme would no longer be available in the case of a constituent of his. I do not know whether he has asked the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority to investigate that specific case, but he will be aware that the Government have made changes to the scheme. We want to focus on the victims of the most serious crimes, which is why we have retained the maximum compensation available for a single injury at £250,000.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the local overseas allowance, the specific purpose of which is to contribute towards the necessary additional local cost of living for service personnel who are assigned overseas. It is also supposed to be flexible in order to address the different circumstances of people abroad. If he has not already done so, he could refer the details of the case he raised to the Ministry of Defence to see whether it assessed the allowance entitlement correctly.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned housing allowance for service personnel and called on the MOD to work on it with the devolved Administrations and local government. It is principally the responsibility of local governments to decide what systems they use to prioritise housing for ex-service personnel. The Local Government Association might be able to take up the issue, in order to achieve a collective, more positive local authority approach.

The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of Ofcom and asked whether the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills could look at providing a level playing field, so that Royal Mail could operate under the same level of regulation as others in the same business, such as TNT.

The hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) brought his extensive expertise on defence, which the House values greatly, to the issue of British personnel deaths in Afghanistan. I would like to take this opportunity to commend our service personnel for operating in the most demanding of environments and demonstrating immense personal courage. As the hon. Gentleman has said, 438 members of our armed forces have died while serving in Afghanistan and their loss is keenly felt. On behalf of the Chamber, I extend my sympathies to those families and friends who have lost loved ones. A much greater number of personnel have also been seriously injured or wounded in Afghanistan.

Our strategy is designed to enable the country effectively to manage its own security and prevent its territory from ever again being a safe haven for international terrorism. I echo the hon. Gentleman’s point that no one in this House will blame our servicemen and women if their mission is not successful. They have fought the battle that they needed to fight, but it is clear that many of the enormous problems on the ground are beyond their control. Their remit has also gone beyond the military remit set at the outset.

I thank the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) for giving me advance notice of her speech. She is concerned about the impact of Government policies on the north-east. At the same time, however, she highlighted that the north-east is still the most successful region in the country, with the biggest car plants in Europe and the biggest chemical plant in the UK, so in some cases things are working very well in her region and we support that. Whereas in the past there was an awful lot of focus on financial services in London, the Government are trying to ensure that we focus much more on the manufacturing industry, which would, of course, benefit her region. We are starting to see some improvements, with manufacturing exports going to the world’s emerging economies. There has also been an increase in exports in the past 12 months, so her region should benefit from that too. I could reel off other statistics if she would like, but she may get frustrated by that. She referred to the £64 million for the upgrade of the A1. There is also £61 million to build more than 3,300 new homes for affordable rent and £17 million to return more than 1,500 empty properties to use in the north-east and Yorkshire. Although the scale of Government activity is perhaps not what she would like, there are positive developments in her region, which I hope she will welcome.

The hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) referred to a large number of people. Other Members alleged that that was to cut down on the cost of his Christmas cards. I am sure that that is not the case. I cannot possibly mention all the people he mentioned. I say to him, however, that the risk of mentioning a large number of people is that everyone in Central Devon who reads this debate and whose name is not on the list will wonder why they were excluded. I congratulate him on highlighting a number of important community activities, including the new community school, the youth services and the fostering work of people in his area. He has put on the record his thanks to a large number of people and groups, and we would all like to echo that.

The right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), who is not in his place, mentioned first that people can drink quite a lot at Christmas. Those who attended the Leader’s reception last night will know that there was very little drinking at all. On a more serious point, the right hon. Gentleman said that we need to think about the police at this time of year because, although we may be about to go on recess and will relax over Christmas, they have the responsibility of dealing with some of the fallout of Christmas. Regrettably, as many Members will know, one of the fallouts of Christmas is an increase in domestic violence, which the police have to deal with.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the threat of a police station closure in Tottenham. He will know that the Mayor of London has said that the police station will not close. However, he is clearly concerned that the hours of operation may be different. I say to him that this issue is surely not just about the availability of a building, but about ensuring that people have a way of quickly and effectively reporting crime. Many people would want to report crime from home if they could, rather than having to go to a police station.

There are ways and means of dealing with some of his concerns that do not necessarily require the number of police stations to be maintained exactly as it is throughout London. London Members will be aware that some counters in London receive very few visits, if any. There are strong arguments for saying that police resources could be used more effectively by supporting people in other ways, such as patrolling the streets, rather than sitting behind a counter, waiting for a caller who does not come.

I certainly echo the concerns of the right hon. Member for Tottenham about fire station closures. There is a risk of closures throughout London. I am sure that the Mayor’s press office will have been following this debate closely and will want to respond to him about those concerns.

The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) made such a short contribution in relation to medals that I was not quite sure what he was talking about. I think that he was talking about the fact that men who served in Bomber Command will receive only a clasp. I am sure that the Ministry of Defence will have noted his concern that that is not sufficient recompense for the sacrifice that they made for us 60 or so years ago.

The hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) commended Brent Pensioners Forum on its 25th anniversary. We certainly join him in that, but there are other areas where I am not able to join him. He clearly feels that the Government’s energy policy is ancillary to the wider economic goals. I do not accept that; I think that the two are intrinsically linked. I hope he agrees that clarity on the investment that will go into the energy industry is as welcome as it has been lacking. I know he has concerns about the extent to which the Government are addressing fuel poverty, but a wide range of different measures are in place at a time that is challenging—as he knows and as the Government know—in terms of energy prices and because we are seeking to address a substantial deficit.

The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) paid tribute to Betty Geller and the role that she played in his constituency. He also referred to the important issue of phoenix companies, and businesses have raised concerns about that with me as a constituency MP. One business in my constituency provides insulation. It tends to go in at the end of a contract and is often not paid because it arrives at the end of the whole process. It has seen phoenix companies re-emerge with the same directors in place. The hon. Gentleman is concerned that the system is not working. If he has not already done so, perhaps he will write to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and set out the precise details of the case of Medi-Vial to which he referred, so that we can consider whether there are ways of improving the system to ensure that directors who are not fit to run companies are precluded from doing so. He made a sensible suggestion about the Secretary of State exploring further measures such as electronic systems to report problems on line.

The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell)made serious allegations about the activities of Hillingdon council that have not gone unnoticed. Those allegations are now on the record and I expect the council will want to respond. If he has not already done so, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will communicate his concerns to the local district auditor, which will want to investigate those serious allegations. I am surprised if a new swimming pool has been built without a contract—

John McDonnell

- Hansard -

Would you like to see the report?

Tom Brake

- Hansard - - Excerpts

The hon. Gentleman asks from a sedentary position whether I would like to see the report, but I trust that he has read that report carefully. If what he says is the case, it concerns me greatly. I am sure that Hillingdon council and—if he communicates his concerns —the district auditor, will want to pursue the serious issues raised.

My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) spoke about flooding and listed villages and towns in his community that have been affected. Flooding is clearly a real and ongoing risk to his constituents, and he mentioned the 19 flood warnings currently in place and the £30,000 of damage that is typically caused to a home by flooding. The future of flood insurance is a priority for the Government and discussions with the Association of British Insurers are continuing. However, the Government do not want to comment on the detail of those negotiations at this stage as conducting such negotiations from the Dispatch Box is not good practice.

We continue to seek a new approach that is better than the statement of principles—which, as my hon. Friend said, is not perfect—and that genuinely secures affordable flood insurance without placing unsustainable costs on other policy holders and the taxpayer. The Government’s primary role is to reduce flood risk, and in recognition of that an extra £120 million was announced in the autumn statement for flood defences in England over the spending period. That is on top of the £2 billion that has already been committed. My hon. Friend raised interesting issues about the Bellwin scheme, and I hope that the Department for Communities and Local Government will respond to his specific point about what he believes are anomalies in the way it works.

The hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) named a number of constituents whom he thought worthy of mention, and I certainly agree. He also highlighted how the Government are committed to localism and reversing the decades or indeed centuries of centralisation in this country. That reversal is probably welcomed by Members on both sides of the House, who recognise that the pendulum had swung too far. We are now swinging it back the other way.

On the hon. Gentleman’s specific concerns about Northumberland, the Government have set out clearly our commitment to the protection of the green belt, ensuring that more than a third of England is safeguarded from inappropriate development. The national planning policy framework states that the Government attach great importance to the green belt, the fundamental aim of which is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open.

Subject to the outcome of consultation, it remains our policy to abolish the previous Government’s top-down regional strategies, which threatened the green belt in around 30 towns and cities. We have not built enough housing for decades. Unless we tackle that, future generations will have nowhere to live. That does not mean that the countryside will be concreted over for housing. There is no Government policy on the amount of land needed for housing provision, and local councils and communities are best placed to determine how housing need should be met.

The hon. Gentleman went on to ask a number of specific questions for the Department for Communities and Local Government, to which I am sure it will want to respond.

I am afraid I did not make a note of the different countries that were visited by the ex-leader to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) referred. Clearly, it was a large number of countries. Like him, I express some surprise that the ex-leader of said council has found it necessary to visit quite so many continents. He could learn about local government in some of the countries my hon. Friend named, but I suspect he took more to them than he took away. My hon. Friend needs to raise the matter with the local district auditor, as I am sure he has, so that he can investigate. I thought my hon. Friend would call at the end of his speech for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority to be brought in to introduce an expenses system to keep control of expenditure at Essex county council. I waited, but the call did not come.

I should tell the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) how much my family enjoy visiting Dover castle, which is a fantastic destination for families. He welcomed the new hospital coming to his constituency. If I could temporarily abandon my hat as Deputy Leader of the House, I would say, as the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, that I would welcome a new St Helier hospital in my constituency. The hon. Gentleman referred to the port of Dover remaining as a community port. I lived in France for 10 years, so I hope he objected to the French not because they are French, but because they are not British.