Deregulation Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Raynsford]

I, too, intend to speak about the provisions on short-term lettings. I very much endorse the views that were ably expressed by my hon. Friends and by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field). There is cross-party agreement and I fail to understand why the Government are proceeding with a measure which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) rightly identified, does not address a problem because there is no problem. It will simply create a series of difficulties and aggravate problems that are obvious to many of us who have looked at the subject and which are increasing exponentially because of the changing character of the lettings market in London.

Before I proceed, I draw attention to my interests as declared in the register.

I shall not repeat the arguments that have been well rehearsed already. This is not just a problem for central London. In my constituency, Greenwich and Woolwich, there is a lot of evidence of problems of exactly this nature. We have some major tourist attractions, such as the O2, which attract people for individual events, and the availability of very short lettings—one or two nights—is an obvious attractive additional factor for people thinking of coming to such an event. There are significant numbers of short-term lettings which have the effect, as my hon. Friends have highlighted, first, of eroding permanent lettings because properties are converted from permanent lettings to short-term lettings, and secondly, in certain circumstances, attracting antisocial behaviour and behaviour which is very damaging to existing residents of the blocks being used, where properties are being converted for such short-term lettings.

There was a murder recently in a property in Erebus drive in West Thamesmead, not in the central area of Greenwich, which is perhaps more attractive to tourism, but an area to the eastern edge of my constituency. The matter is under investigation so I shall be cautious in what I say, but the evidence that I have seen is that it involved a very short letting—for only two nights, I think—and a party which attracted people from a wide area, including the west midlands. In the course of an altercation that evidently developed at the party, one individual lost their life.

Such a situation is hugely damaging to the community’s confidence in its homes if it finds that properties can be subject to such short-term letting with very little check on who has taken out the letting. These are short-term agreements and they are not subject to the kinds of checks that reputable landlords would carry out before deciding whether to let premises to an individual. That in itself is bad enough, but where individual lettings take place for a short period and properties are advertised, people come from far afield, resulting in huge antisocial behaviour with noise late at night, causing nuisance to residents. These are the consequences of what the Government seek to do. They are already a problem, but at least local authorities have powers at the moment to act. If the Government proceed with their proposals, those powers will be seriously restricted. It will not be possible to take action unless it can be established that the property has been used for this purpose for more than 90 nights. That in itself will be a difficult task to establish, as the City of Westminster made clear in its evidence to us.

This is a measure that has the seeds of all sorts of problems and difficulties, and I fail to understand why the Government are proceeding with it against the overwhelming views of the informed public in London. This is not a partisan case. Political parties across the board have agreed that proper regulatory arrangements need to be in place to allow the control of such lettings and to prevent the kinds of abuses that I have highlighted. There is also widespread support from residents groups in many areas of London, including my own. Against all that evidence and with an extraordinary lack of evidence to support what the Government are doing, I hope that common sense will prevail and that they will agree to pull back and accept the amendments, at least to allow greater control and safeguards, and to avoid some of the consequences that we fear will happen as a result of this ill-conceived measure.

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

I do not want to repeat what others have said but rather to address a specific local issue for me concerning the area around Heathrow airport. I have had representations from all the major hotels along the Bath road around Heathrow and from the local community, and I have seen representations from London Councils. I will describe the area as it now is, because I am worried that this will be the straw that breaks the camel’s back in terms of retaining any form of community around the Heathrow villages. With the threat of the third runway, Sipson is already three-quarters bought by Heathrow Airport Ltd and rented out on licences of, I believe, no more than two years, which is destabilising for the community anyway. There is a massive expansion of buy-to-lets. All of us can identify buy-to-lets in our constituencies by their unkempt gardens, the lack of repair, and the occasional mattress dumped outside. With this legislation there will be further destabilisation of the community and further short-term lettings.

Who asked for this change in legislation? What was the enormous demand? Who was banging at the doors of the ministerial office to change the system, which may not be working brilliantly but which at least gives local authorities in their local areas some local tools that they can use against the adverse effects of short-term letting that we have had described today? I cannot see the benefits to any but a small commercial niche that seeks to profit at the expense of the wider community. I am fearful of the impact on legitimate traders as it is. I am worried about the impact on the hotels along the Bath road, which are a source of employment to my local community. But in addition to that, the average hotel in my area employs between 200 and 250 staff. Many of those staff live within the local community in private rented properties. I am worried that this will affect the private rented market in my area and have a knock-on effect on staff who are not the highest paid and sometimes fairly low paid.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Brake]

With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will try to respond to most, if not all of the points raised in this informed and passionate debate about some of the matters in the Bill.

In response to the hon. Member for Corby (Andy Sawford), the Government do not believe that health and safety measures are bad. Clearly, when they are appropriate, the Government support them. We are pleased, and welcome the fact, that the Health and Safety Executive has recently, very vocally, pointed out to some organisations how badly they are interpreting health and safety rules in using them as an excuse not to allow things to happen.

The hon. Gentleman spent some time on the issue of private hire and subcontracting. If he feels that it is safer for a person who approaches a private hire operator who says, “Sorry, I can’t help you”, because they cannot subcontract it, then to go off and look online for an alternative provider, he is entitled to that view. I think that safety is actually enhanced by a contractor in an area having a relationship with another subcontractor who can work in another area. The hon. Gentleman called for precisely that—a relationship between the different providers—and that is probably a better guarantee of safety than someone simply looking online for people to do a job in the area. All such firms must be licensed, which also provides a safeguard for those seeking to travel in that way.

The hon. Gentleman referred to his party’s policy of introducing rent caps or rent controls. [Interruption.] He did, I believe. We can look at Hansard, but I think he used the term “rent caps”. The evidence is very clear that such caps lead to a reduction in the number of private rented properties, which I am sure is not what he is seeking.

Like other hon. Members, the hon. Gentleman thought that local authorities should be able to decide whether certain areas should be exempted. In the Government’s view, that would introduce inconsistencies in that different rules would apply in different parts of London; our proposals will provide consistency and be easier for people to understand.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) talked about how insurance for whole blocks may become invalid. If he has such examples, I would certainly like to see them. Our view is that the reforms only affect the requirement for planning permission; they do not have any impact on insurance polices and tenancy agreements. If he can supply me with any examples, I will be happy to look at them.

My hon. Friend referred to Home Office concerns about the change from people staying in hotels to their staying in short-term lets, making it harder for the security services to monitor their activities, but that is clearly happening already. It will not happen as a result of our changes; it is already happening on quite a large scale in London, as other hon. Members have said. If the security services have identified such an issue, they will have called on the Home Office to take action. I am sure that the Home Office would respond positively to any such requests, but I am not aware of any.

Like other hon. Members, my hon. Friend asked whether local authorities could choose to exempt particular areas in relation to private lettings. As I have said, that is not our view. We want to provide local authorities with the ability to approach the Secretary of State if the amenity of a particular locality is affected, and we expect them to do so.

[John McDonnell]

Will the Minister elaborate on that point? Once the legislation has gone through, will local authorities be able to submit a bid to designate an area, or do they have to wait for problems to arise before making a submission?

[Tom Brake]

The honest answer is that we do not yet have such details, but they will be set out in regulations. I assume that a local authority would have to provide examples, such as a consistent pattern of noise nuisance or antisocial behaviour in an area, in a letter or submission for the Secretary of State to consider. The exemption will apply to a locality; Westminster could not apply for an exemption for the whole of the area covered by the council.

The hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) spoke about the proposal to make people report it to the local authority every time they let property on a short-term basis. I want to understand better the purpose behind that and how it would work in practice. What enforcement would there be if people did not report it? An individual who was going to rent out their property for a week would be very unlikely to do so. How would she ensure that it was done? What action would be taken against people who did not comply, given that short-term lets are already happening on a large scale in London and people are not taking notice of the existing law?

Christmas Adjournment

John McDonnell Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2014 Commons Chamber

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

I want to raise the case of Shaker Aamer and make a plea for Government action to secure his release from Guantanamo Bay. Shaker is the last British resident of Guantanamo.

The story of Shaker is simple. He was born in December 1968 in Medina in Saudi Arabia. He left home aged 17, lived in America for a year and travelled to many countries before making his home in the United Kingdom. In 1996, he was granted the legal right to remain in the UK and worked as a translator for a firm of solicitors. His application for British citizenship was in progress when Shaker, his wife and young family decided to travel to Afghanistan to work on charitable projects. Notably, he was supporting a girls school and digging wells. He arrived in June 2001 to join his friend Moazzam Begg and to share a house in Kabul.

After 9/11, in October 2001, the US and the UK started bombing Afghanistan and Shaker sent his family on to safety. As he tried to follow them, he was betrayed by Afghani villagers to the Northern Alliance. He was tortured and then sold for a bounty of $5,000 to the US. He was taken to the “dark” prison in Kabul, where he suffered appalling torture and was transferred to Bagram and Kandahar for further abuse. Shaker states that he was subjected to cruel torture and coercive interrogation, and MI5 and MI6 agents were present. In February 2002 he was among the first detainees to be transported to Guantanamo, in the orange suits, the chains, the ear muffs, the shackles and the blindfolds. There he continued to suffer acts of cruelty, torture and deprivation.

Shaker was among the prisoners who protested against the harsh conditions and he soon became a respected spokesperson for the other detainees. Following his role in a major hunger strike in June and July 2005, he organised a prisoners council. All the prisoners’ requests were denied, and to silence him Shaker was put into solitary confinement for five years. Articles 5 and 9 of the universal declaration of human rights state:

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”

and

“No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile”,

yet Shaker’s lawyer in the US, Brent Mickum, stated:

“Shaker is still being tortured down there. Shaker has been jailed as long as anyone, undergoing regular torture from beating to food and sleep deprivation. There isn’t a shred of evidence against him.”

Shaker has now been held without charge for over a decade. President Obama promised to close Guantanamo by January 2010 and to restore the US to the rule of law. However, Guantanamo still remains open, with the remaining detainees losing hope of an end to their ordeal, in which all their human rights have been denied. Shaker Aamer was cleared for release by the Bush Administration in 2007. In January 2010, the Obama taskforce review reaffirmed his status. In August 2007, the UK Government recognised Shaker’s right to return as a long-term resident and requested his release to the UK. This request was strenuously repeated on subsequent occasions. In July 2010, the Prime Minister stated that the coalition Government would continue to request his release.

Shaker’s family live in Battersea and they are British citizens. They were represented formerly by Martin Linton and now by the current Member of Parliament for Battersea, both of whom have worked assiduously to secure his release. All he is asking for is to return to his family to live with his four young children back home in London. It is beyond belief, frankly, that he is still detained in Guantanamo, having been cleared twice. It is extremely hard for his family and friends to bear. He has done no wrong but has been greatly wronged by the shameful action of the US Government, unfortunately with some collusion originally by the UK Government. He has suffered cruel and inhuman treatment, including many years incarcerated in solitary confinement in a cell of 6 feet by 8 feet. Shaker’s mental and physical health is a cause of great concern. Following recent visits from his lawyers, it was reported that he is “gradually dying in Guantanamo” from his many medical problems and from the years of abuse.

I ask the Prime Minister to pick up the telephone again to Washington to ask that Shaker be released. He is innocent, he has been cleared twice, and he should be returned home.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I was happy to be with my hon. Friend yesterday delivering a letter about this to Downing street. I am sure he agrees that if President Obama can, correctly, release the remaining members of the Miami five and show a rapprochement with Cuba, he could release somebody who is in prison in Cuba whom he has the power to release, and do it quickly.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

It is perfectly open to the President to do this now. There is a window of opportunity that may close in January as a result of the changes in Congress, so now is the time for him to act. A number of MPs from all political parties have signed a plea to urge the Prime Minister to pick up the phone to Washington to ensure that Shaker is returned home to his family by Christmas.

I want to raise two other things. This Christmas will the last Christmas when my constituents and many others in the London borough of Hillingdon will have the opportunity to use the services of Randalls store in Uxbridge, because it is closing. It has served our community over generations and decades. I thank the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall), his predecessors, his family and the staff for the service they have provided. I wish him and all the staff well in the future. The store will be greatly missed as a local community facility.

This morning I visited pupils at Harlington community school, a local secondary school where a group of sixth formers had, of their own volition, collected parcel after parcel of food to be provided to Hillingdon food bank. I wish them a very happy Christmas. I take pride in what they have done and their generosity as young people working hard on behalf of the community. I wish you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and all Members and staff a happy Christmas.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

There can be no more appropriate moment to call Sir John Randall.

[Sir John Randall (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)]

One of the regrets I will have when I leave this House will be not to work alongside—at least in parliamentary terms; I may be able to do so in an extra-parliamentary way—my comrade in arms, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell).

This will be my last Christmas Adjournment debate. Like all good things, it must come to an end. Yesterday in the Division Lobby, I rather got the impression that the time had come to leave, because as I approached the desk to register my vote, I pulled out my Oyster card. I think that sums up the fact that I am getting ready to go.

I remember these Adjournment debates with great pleasure. When the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) was Deputy Leader of the House, he used to make very amusing wind-up speeches in which he gave all the speakers roles from various television sit-coms, such as “’Allo ’Allo!”, “Dad’s Army”, and perhaps appropriately, “Are You Being Served?” As the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington has said, I was usually portrayed as Young Mr Grace. I think the Prime Minister must have read some of those Hansard reports, because he used to refer to me as Young Mr Grace. I do not think that was necessarily a compliment, but I will take it as such.

As the hon. Gentleman has said, unfortunately the family business is closing its doors. I want to thank the staff who have worked there over the years. When I go around canvassing or talking to constituents and they mention the store, it is usually not the quality of the products that they talk about—although they do mention the things they have bought—but the wonderful staff. The longest-serving member of staff has been there 42 years and I assure the House that I will do whatever I can to help those who want to find another job. I will do my very best.

Having witnessed the experiences of those looking for work elsewhere, I am shocked at how the retail world has changed. The sort of employment being offered now, including zero-hours contracts, makes it quite scary for people going into the retail business. All of us, as consumers, have to take some blame for that, because it is consumer pressure that leads to margins being cut and everybody looking at how they can do that, and I am afraid that employment is one of the affected areas. Although I can blame online services and lots of other things, we all have to take responsibility for that.

On the issue of long-serving members of staff who have probably done more for my constituents than I have ever done, I want to mention my secretary, Mrs Delma Beebe, who has been with me since I entered the House in 1997. She started working in the House in 1963, in the Refreshment Department. In 1967 she took on a Member of Parliament and I am her latest, and probably her last, MP. She is the person with whom my constituents have most interaction. If it was not for her, I am not sure that I would be here today, because they may well have booted me out.

One of my constituents, Mr Conrad Tokarczyk, has raised with me the issue of step-free access in underground stations, and the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington and I have been working on that, together with Deborah King. She is another constituent of mine who is always coming up with good and interesting ideas, although I do not always agree with them. For instance, she wants job sharing for MPs, but I do not understand how that would work with votes. Anyway, step-free access is very important and there are some innovative ideas about how businesses could provide sponsorship. Money could also be taken off a passenger’s Oyster card—to return to my favourite subject—on a voluntary basis and given to their particular station in order for it to improve its facilities. Transport for London should find out how much the necessary improvements will cost, because then we would know the sum we are working towards.

One of the things I have been very pleased to have played a small part in during my time in the House is the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, because I did some work on marine issues. I was delighted to hear the recent announcement on fisheries. The anglers and I do not always agree—they have different policies from mine on cormorants and goosanders—but I have spoken to Members and an ex-Member, Martin Salter, and they are disappointed that there are not enough measures relating to the preservation of sea bass stocks. We should address that.

I know that not only the House but somebody from Private Eye who likes to follow these debates and regards my speeches as among the most boring things that happen in this place would be disappointed if I did not mention birds in the remaining minutes of my speech. I was disappointed that the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) did not take my intervention earlier, because I was going to welcome him to the side of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. I remember having a heated discussion with him in the Members’ Lobby some time ago. He had said during a Westminster Hall debate that houses were more important than birds, so I was going to congratulate him on his Damascene conversion in the past few months. Is it not refreshing to find UKIP actually speaking on behalf of west African migrants? We should all welcome that.

I want to talk about a success story, which Members from both sides of the House can take pleasure in. The numbers of bittern—the bog bumper, as it is also known—have been increasing. It is a marvellous bird. People do not need to go to incredibly special places to see them. In the winter, not far away at the London Wetland centre in Barnes, people can, if they are lucky, see these elusive denizens of the marsh. In 1997, there were only 11 booming males. They are called that because of their display call, which can be heard for miles.

[John McDonnell]

How does it go?

[Sir John Randall]

I do not think that Hansard had better try to do it.

In 2014, there are now 140 boomers, or singing males, over 61 sites. The great thing is that that is all the result not only of a bittern project, but of making sure that the reed beds are in a good way. I am particularly pleased about the reed beds not only for the bitterns, but for other denizens of the reed beds that are doing really well. One bird that I perhaps feel a great affinity for, and which is also doing well, is the bearded tit. [Laughter.]

On that note, as always at this time of year, we like to thank everybody who works in the House. Because I worked with them for a long time, I particularly want to refer to the people in the Government Whips Office. I have previously mentioned those at the very top of it—Mark Kelly, Roy Stone and Kate Wilson—but I also want to mention Claire Scott and the others in the administration unit.

Finally, I must mention one person whom I have never referred to in Parliament before, but who has done as much for me as anybody else in this place—my wife Kate, and I will also mention our children Peter, David and Elizabeth. If it had not been for their support, I would have been even grumpier than I normally am.

Finances of the House of Commons

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2014 Commons Chamber

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

I would like to add my name to that tribute to the Member with the most poetically named constituency, let me put it that way— the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso)—who has worked tirelessly on behalf of all of us and all the staff. I would also like to join the right hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to all the staff who service this House.

I want to raise an issue that I have raised with the right hon. Gentleman before—specifically about the security staff. There are about 300 of them who service this House and provide us with excellent security services overall. Appendix 1 to the Finance and Services Committee report refers to the policy context, stating:

“There are a number of significant policy matters and events on the horizon that may have a bearing on the budget.”

Included in that list is the

“Renewal of the security arrangements in 2015”.

About 250 of these 300 security staff are members of the trade union, PCS, and I chair the PCS parliamentary group—a cross-party group that takes an interest in the policies of the union, with a particular interest in the staff who work here.

The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross will know the history. The contract expires at the end of March next year, so its future will need to be decided. There were discussions about whether the Metropolitan police would be allocated that contract and indeed about whether they were interested in having it renewed. There was a proposal to give the work on the House’s three main entrances to a private company. I met Mr Paul Martin to discuss that matter, and I found him to be nothing but helpful when he informed us as much as he could about the options available to him. My understanding, as far as can be discerned, is that the Met is not keen on continuing the contract, so the options are privatisation, part-privatisation or bringing the staff in-house. The staff very clearly want to be brought in-house.

Prior to or during the summer it was argued that it would be impractical to split the security arrangements so that the three gates were given to a private company, with the rest of the security arrangements being handled by other staff employed either by the Met directly or by another company. Even the Met argued that we need a fully integrated service rather than have it divided in this way. I share that view. When will a decision about this matter be made? Is it forthcoming? The staff want to know what their futures will be and they favour maximum security. As I say, if the Met is not going to continue the contract, they want to be brought in-house. If there are concerns about rushing to a decision, there is also the option of extending the existing contract for a number of years.

My personal view is that I would be very worried and anxious about bringing in a private company to operate this contract, certainly if the work were to be divided up in that way. The last thing I want, frankly, is G4S or something like it to be responsible for security here, particularly during a period of heightened security risk, as we have all acknowledged, and particularly as we move towards a general election that, to say the least, will see significant changes taking place in the political climate.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I presume that when the hon. Gentleman refers to security, he is not implying that outside contractors would be armed. We would still require the Metropolitan police to have an armed facility beside them. I presume he is not suggesting that we could sub-contract that aspect.

[John McDonnell]

The proposal was for the privatisation of the three main entrances and all the security aspects of running them—basically, the search facility. I think that the Met had come to the conclusion themselves that disaggregating the security service in that way would make it very difficult to manage the whole arrangements. Where we have seen those sorts of disaggregations of security services, we have seen breakdowns in communication, leading to reduced security, putting people at risk. In a heightened period of security—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman was talking specifically about one section of those who were in the House to help facilitate it. He was answering an intervention, but I remind all hon. Members that we do not discuss security issues on the Floor of the House. The hon. Gentleman started out in order, but was tempted down a more complex route about the security of the House. I know that he wants to return to his substantive point.

[John McDonnell]

It is very easy to be tempted in the House, especially by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). Let me return to the point. It is important for a decision to be made now so that staff can know what their futures will be. I suggest that the Committee should ensure that the security arrangements remain with the Metropolitan police unless they do not wish that, in which case staff should be employed in-house. That would enable us to maximise the security arrangements of the House during the coming potentially difficult period.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Thurso]

I am most grateful to all Members who have taken part in the debate. It has been quite wide-ranging and had its light-hearted moments, but it has also been very serious, and I think that it does us credit to have discussed our affairs in that way. I will attempt to answer the questions that have been put directly to me, but if for any reason I miss one, I will certainly write to the hon. Member concerned.

The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) asked about security. I have in my brief, in huge, red, block capitals, the words, “You’re not allowed to talk about security in the Chamber”, so I will not. However, I will say that obviously our security is of paramount importance, and so too is value for money. I observe that many places similar to ours get that best security and best value from an in-House security force. I have no idea what the House might do, but I am sure that it will be based on the best evidence externally.

[John McDonnell]

I do not want to tempt the hon. Gentleman any further, but can he indicate what the time scale is for decision making on that?

[John Thurso]

Proposals on the principles of the way forward, rather than the detail, have been received and will be put to the Commission and the House Committee of the Lords at their next meetings. If the proposals are agreed to in principle, the detailed work will take place, but I would not anticipate any particular changes until well into next year. I hope that answer is sufficient for the hon. Gentleman. The director of security would probably give him a fuller briefing, if he would like to take him up on that.

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) for his full account of the work of the Administration Committee. One of the features of this Parliament has been the Administration Committee and the Finance and Services Committee finding a very good way of working together, with the Administration Committee taking the lead on the services and the Finance and Services Committee taking the lead on the financial implications of that. I am most grateful for his contribution.

The shadow Deputy Leader of the House, or deputy shadow Leader of the House—I am not sure which way around it is—the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty), asked a number of substantial questions. The first was where I got the figure of £2.7 million from. The answer is page 10 of the report, which states:

“In the current financial year, at an equivalent point in the electoral cycle, it is forecast to be £2.7 million.”

However, he is absolutely right to ask, as always, because the update is that the like-for-like total net cost for catering services was £1.2 million in the first six months of 2014-15, against £2.25 million in the equivalent period of 2013-14, a reduction of £1.5 million, or 47%. Certainly, that being £360,000 better than budget, it is to be hoped that that will be carried through to the end of the year. I hope that is a reasonable answer. I will write to him about the first question he asked during my speech, but I direct him to annex D on page 32 in relation to the costs of restoration and renewal.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned charities. I absolutely agree that charities should not be penalised. That is part of the policies that have been adopted, and I see no chance of their being changed.

With regard to raising funds from those who come to watch us in this Chamber, there has never been any suggestion, ever, that money be paid by our constituents and the public to view the legislative process, Select Committee hearings, or any other part of our work—and nor should there be. There is a very distinct difference between people coming as members of the public to engage with the political process and those who come as tourists and pay for the privilege. The two are absolutely not linked.

Select Committee on Governance of the House

John McDonnell Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House welcomes the Speaker’s announcement on 1 September of a pause in the process of appointment of a new Clerk of the House and Chief Executive, to give time for further consideration; and accordingly determines that:

(a) there shall be a select committee, called the House of Commons Governance Committee, to consider the governance of the House of Commons, including the future allocation of the responsibilities for House services currently exercised by the Clerk of the House and Chief Executive;

(b) the Committee report to the House by 12 January 2015;

(c) the Committee shall have the powers given to select committees related to government departments under paragraph 4(a) and 4(b) of Standing Order No. 152;

(d) Mr Jack Straw be the Chair of the Committee;

(e) the Committee shall consist of seven other backbench members, to be elected by parties in the proportion of three Conservative, two Labour and one Liberal Democrat, together with one representative of the other parties represented in the House; the parties shall forward their nominations to the Chair of the Committee of Selection by 14 October and any motion made in the House on behalf of the Committee of Selection by the Chair or another member of the Committee shall be treated as having been made in pursuance of Standing Order No. 121(2) for the purposes of Standing Order No. 15(1)(c).

It is an honour to open a debate on a motion to which so many distinguished Members have added their names—the co-sponsors include the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), the right hon. Members for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) and for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart)—and which has commanded support at all levels throughout the House.

The role of the Clerk of the House dates back to at least 1363. Today, the Clerk serves, first, as the House’s adviser on all aspects of procedure, practice and privilege and as the editor of “Erskine May”; secondly, as the chief executive of the House service and chair of the management board; and also, importantly, as accounting officer, as corporate officer, and as the head of the Clerks department, responsible for some 800 members of staff.

The motion is straightforward. It welcomes the announcement by the Speaker of a pause in the current recruitment to the post of Clerk; it establishes a new time-limited Select Committee to consider the governance of the House; it nominates the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) as Chair of that Committee; and it outlines the powers of the Committee, its reporting date and the election of its members. The debate arises because of widespread concern among Members in all parts of the House that the process governing the appointment of the next Clerk of the House was seriously flawed.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jesse Norman]

I should be delighted.

[John McDonnell]

I merely ask for clarification. Does the hon. Gentleman see the new Committee as a time-limited exercise, or as a permanent body?

[Jesse Norman]

As the motion makes clear, the Committee will be time-limited and report in January next year.

There has been some misunderstanding, and much heated discussion, of the clerkship. Those are issues to which I have no desire to add, but the following facts are not in dispute. First, the chosen candidate, Ms Carol Mills, an administrator in the Australian Parliament, was not qualified for the specifically constitutional and procedural functions exercised by the Clerk. Secondly—

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.