National Gallery Industrial Dispute

Debate between John McDonnell and Lord Vaizey of Didcot

Thursday 25th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

I am grateful for the chance to respond to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and I thank him for securing this debate on this important issue. It is obviously a very sensitive matter and it has caused some emotion. He referred to the rally that was held at the end of May in Trafalgar Square. I had the privilege of watching his speech on YouTube today, and I certainly recommend it to all other hon. Members. It was an impassioned and passionate speech in which he talked about how he would bring this issue to the Floor of the House. He described the trustees of the National Gallery, in respect of this dispute, as “philistines”. He used another word that I do not think I would get away with passing off as parliamentary language, but you can watch it on YouTube, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I am sure you will after the debate.

As the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, although the National Gallery is funded by Government, it operates at arm’s length from Government and is responsible for its own staffing arrangements. This debate is really about the National Gallery’s much-needed plans to modernise its arrangements. There is an ongoing modernisation programme and I think that the National Gallery is doing what is needed to provide a service that meets the needs of the public today.

At its heart, the National Gallery has a duty to protect, preserve and curate its priceless collection, and to preserve free access to its galleries. I am pleased that the Government have been able to maintain free access to the permanent collections of our national museums. However, the gallery also has to provide a relevant service to the public—a public whose demands have changed over the years. Visitors have different and high expectations of the gallery, and I want those expectations to be met.

As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the gallery is a great success story. It is the third most visited museum or gallery in the world, after only the Louvre and the British Museum. As he mentioned, more than 6 million people come through its doors every year. The National Gallery needs to meet that huge demand and to provide a good offer to the people who visit it that matches their expectations on security and facilities.

The current staffing arrangements mean that the National Gallery cannot provide a guaranteed level of service outside the restrictive set of standard hours. That limits what it can offer the visiting public. The management of the gallery have decided that the ability to extend opening hours is necessary, and I agree with them. Under the current arrangements, there is no contract to guarantee the availability of staff for evening openings, meaning that for its Friday evening openings, the gallery has to employ a completely separate workforce. On occasion, an insufficiency of in-house staff has led to the contracting in of external staff to cover even exhibition openings and other evening events. I understand that staffing costs at the gallery are projected to increase by almost a third over the next five years, with no extra provision of service. That is a wholly unsustainable situation.

As has been mentioned, the National Gallery engaged with its staff and the unions for five months, in an attempt to increase flexibility, introduce new working patterns and guarantee a minimum level of service at all times. As part of that process, a basic salary above the London living wage was offered as a minimum for all staff. After that extended period of negotiation, no agreement was reached. With the lack of an agreement, the gallery was keen to move ahead with the necessary changes. I have been assured that engagement with the union has continued, via ACAS. More recently, the union was again invited to offer an alternative to the provision of services by an external provider.

Any move will see the 315 staff transferred to an external provider via TUPE, meaning that all their terms and conditions of employment will be protected. There will be no redundancies as a direct result of the transfer.

[John McDonnell]

The union has come up with its alternative plans, which the management have not yet considered. It wants the management to go to ACAS to look at those plans. Would the Minister welcome that initiative, because it would bring them back round the table?

[Mr Vaizey]

That is new information to me. My understanding is that the National Gallery has made it clear to the unions that it would look at any alternative offer. I am not sure what the status of the offer that the hon. Gentleman mentions is and I have not had a chance to hear the National Gallery’s perspective. However, the gallery is at quite a late stage of the procurement process and, in theory, contracts for outsourcing the service will begin later in the year.

[John McDonnell]

Can I get this clear? As a matter of principle, the Minister would welcome the management and the unions going to ACAS together.

[Mr Vaizey]

As a former lawyer, I am cautious about making commitments on the Floor of the House that go beyond the general principle that I do not think it is appropriate for the DCMS to interfere in the negotiations between the National Gallery and the unions. Given that there have been five months of talks, I would say that it is, in principle, for the National Gallery to decide whether it thinks the unions have come up with something that is qualitatively different from offers that have been made before and whether it is therefore appropriate to re-engage in any talks. I would say that—

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Vaizey]

No, I will not give way for a third time at the moment. If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I will make a couple of extra points, and then perhaps there will be time for me to give way again.

If the modernisation programme goes ahead, the gallery will be able to extend its opening hours and guarantee provision for extended evening openings on Fridays and at weekends, which is when a lot of people now wish to visit galleries, and for special events. That will lead to increased income for the gallery, but even more importantly it will make it relevant to a whole new group of visitors. Late events attract more and more people—I believe that as many as 5,000 visitors attend some of them. The gallery has also introduced a great new membership scheme, with 20,000 members, so it is making great strides to increase its income, which will allow it to be more resilient.

It is my understanding that staff will benefit from the modernisation programme. The previous Culture Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), worked with the National Gallery to ensure that it was in a suitable situation to supply the London living wage to all staff. That will start next week, and we should all welcome it. I believe that the National Gallery is the first national museum to introduce the London living wage for all its staff.

I understand that the incoming director, Gabriele Finaldi, and the new chairman of trustees, Hannah Rothschild, are aware of the situation. Ms Rothschild was of course a member of the board that took the decision to outsource staffing services as part of the modernisation programme. It is important to make the point that I do not believe the process is being rushed through.

I think this would be an appropriate point at which to give way to the hon. Gentleman for a third time.

[John McDonnell]

I just want to get the Minister’s view clear. Surely he would welcome a resolution through negotiation and talks, and would therefore urge all sides to get together for those talks at this stage.

[Mr Vaizey]

At some point the National Gallery has to take a decision to move on, and my understanding is that it asked the unions to come up with an alternative offer by 8 June. That deadline, which I understand was an agreement between ACAS, PCS and the National Gallery, was not met. As I have said, it is not my intention to tell the National Gallery what it should do. The process has not been rushed and there has been a great deal of engagement with the union during the process.

The hon. Gentleman talked about the individual who has left the gallery. As he made clear, there is a legal process, and the National Gallery has acted in line with the judge’s orders to this point in ensuring that no detriment is suffered pending the tribunal in October. Of course, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on a case that is effectively sub judice.

I think we can all agree that the National Gallery is a fantastic institution with a truly world-class permanent collection owned by the public of this nation.

BBC (Parliamentary Oversight)

Debate between John McDonnell and Lord Vaizey of Didcot

Wednesday 5th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Vaizey]

It is important that the BBC World Service has an element of independence from Government, so the move was the right one to make. In addition, savings can be found by combining the budgets for domestic radio and the work of the World Service, for example in relation to the use of equipment and technicians. It was the right move in that it provided an effective settlement for the World Service at a time of economic austerity, but I hear my hon. Friend’s point about the National Audit Office and I will turn to that issue later—it comes up time and again.

I want to make clear this Government’s firm commitment to the long-standing principle, which is of the utmost importance, that the BBC must be independent of Government and of political intervention. The political independence of the media is a live subject both in the House and outside, so it is important to reiterate that principle. The political independence of all media is key to any healthy democracy, and the Government must always ensure that such independence is secured and, where possible, strengthened. Independence, however, does not mean that the BBC, or indeed any broadcaster, should be unaccountable for its actions. Because of the unique way in which it is funded and owned, the BBC should be accountable, and primarily to licence fee payers.

I shall put that remark in context. The BBC is a public corporation established by a royal charter and framework agreement, which sets out the role, responsibilities and governance of the BBC. Within the framework of that charter and agreement, the BBC is editorially and operationally independent of Government and, rightly, there is no provision for the Government to intervene in the BBC’s day-to-day activities.

The current BBC charter gives responsibility for the governance of the BBC to the BBC Trust. The duties of the trust, as enshrined in the charter, include representing licence fee payers, ensuring that the independence of the BBC is maintained and assessing the views of licence fee payers. We believe that those principles, alongside the others set out in the charter and agreement, provide a strong, open and transparent framework of accountability to licence fee payers.

We have recently reinforced the oversight of the BBC. During the last licence fee settlement we introduced new mechanisms to further strengthen the BBC’s financial accountability, and the National Audit Office is now empowered to conduct a value-for-money review of the BBC. We understand the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns). It is important that the National Audit Office works with the BBC, but it does have access to the BBC’s finances.

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

I think that many Members from across the House have welcomed the National Audit Office’s involvement, but there seems to be a disconnect between the audit that goes on at that office and the trust having a role in ensuring that there is some financial accountability. There seems to be a lack of expertise on the trust’s board with which to translate the audit information, or the understanding of it, into action.

I will give a brief example. The National Union of Journalists has, over the past week or two, pointed out that the cuts in the number of journalists and the outsourcing that have taken place have resulted in some of the BBC’s recent failings. In comparison, however, BBC management have collected £3 million in car allowances—even if they do not drive—£2 million in private health care and £4.7 million in golden goodbyes. The information provided by audit does not seem to be translated by the Trust into actions to control management expenditure.

[Mr Vaizey]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about the expertise of the BBC Trust. The way of dodging his point would be to say that that is a matter for the trust. It would not be right for me to interfere or to comment on appointments to the trust. The appointment process is independent and ensures that members of the trust are appointed without political interference. The chairman of the trust is appointed by the Secretary of State and the appointment is approved by the Prime Minister, but the hon. Gentleman should perhaps contact the chairman of the trust to raise his concerns and to explain why he feels that the trust is not doing enough to examine the BBC’s finances.

BBC

Debate between John McDonnell and Lord Vaizey of Didcot

Tuesday 10th July 2012 Westminster Hall

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

On my calculations, we have about four minutes each, so I will be as brief as I can. I congratulate the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) on the way in which he introduced the debate. The affection in which he is held in certain parts of the House is clear.

The last issue the hon. Gentleman raised is something we are all concerned about and we will certainly take it up. May I gently suggest to him that he should tell his friend that joining the trade union might help because it, too, is raising such issues? He also mentioned the scandal of Shrewsbury not having a TV camera. Of course we will raise that matter that as well, and we may even have a “whip round” at some stage to assist him. I am pleased that he has secured this debate, and I look forward to hearing the coalition parties’ response to his proposals for the full privatisation of the BBC or its funding directly through taxation. We are looking for a creative approach from the Front Benchers.

[Mr Vaizey]

I can confirm that there are no plans to privatise the BBC or to fund it through direct taxation.

[John McDonnell]

I think the hon. Gentleman was simply suggesting ideas for the coalition manifesto at the next election. Such ideas seem to be coming daily from a wide range of Back Benchers at the moment.

Later today in Parliament, a group of trade unions will launch the report, “BBC Cuts: There is an alternative”. They include the Broadcasting Entertainment Cinematograph and Theatre Union, the Musicians’ Union, the National Union of Journalists, Unite the Union, and the Writers’ Guild. I urge all Members to come along to that launch. The report outlines the concerns of the unions, which are representing their staff, about the threat to the BBC itself. It might well fit in with what the hon. Gentleman has said. The unions believe that the freeze in the licence fee for the coming period and the loading on of additional responsibilities mean that some of the BBC’s core activities are being cut, and that the BBC is under threat. Although I do not want to go into the murky past of how that licence fee settlementcame about, I have to say that undue influence was exerted by Rupert Murdoch and Murdoch junior. Their statements at the Mactaggart lecture in 2009 were translated a fortnight later by the Secretary of State in an article in The Sun, but let us not go into that in any depth, because the Leveson inquiry may well demonstrate the undue influence that the Murdoch empire exerted on the eventual settlement of the licence fee.

The implications of that licence fee settlement are that 2,000 jobs will go at the BBC; and that there will be £340 million of extra funding responsibilities for the World Service, S4C, the roll-out of super-fast broadband, local TV and BBC monitoring. In news, 140 jobs are already going. Something that might cheer up the hon. Gentleman is that three “Newsnight” reporters are going as well, but I am not sure which ones; he might wish to suggest a few names. Three Radio 4 news reporters are going, as are 17 posts across Radio 1, and one extra in news services. Twenty-eight posts are going in the newsroom, including nine studio staff. The News Channel is losing a presenter, the radio newsroom is losing two senior broadcast journalists, and six posts are to go in other areas.

Members—including the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), who has now left her seat—have mentioned the effective lobby that we all undertook on a cross-party basis to try to save as much as we could of local radio, but that only stopped cuts worth some £15 million; others are going ahead. There are plans, too, to axe 31 posts in national TV current affairs. Editions are being cut from Radio 4’s “Law in Action” and “The Report”, while “Beyond Westminster” and “Taking a Stand” are coming to an end. The BBC plans to halve its spending on party conferences and reduce programme presentation from them; six jobs are going at Millbank, along with four posts in live political programmes.

The Asian Network is still under threat. International news coverage will be affected, with a number of sponsored reporters’ posts around the world being closed. Whatever the criticisms of the World Service, many people rely on it as the only accurate journalism accessible to them on a whole range of fronts. Those are the concerns that many people have about the future of the BBC. They add to the other concerns we have about major sports events being lost to paid TV and the threat to the BBC as a major sponsor of creativity, arts and entertainment.

I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern about some of the BBC’s priorities, especially regarding the high pay of some of the staff. I agree that, as has been suggested, the remuneration committee should be populated by representatives of the staff as well as the listening public. In that way, we may well control some of the high salaries.

BBC Local Radio

Debate between John McDonnell and Lord Vaizey of Didcot

Wednesday 26th October 2011 Westminster Hall

[John McDonnell]

That is one issue that we have been raising with Ministers, because it would be helpful if they published the information about the number of times that they met with the Murdoch empire to discuss the licence fee settlement. I would welcome the Minister’s response to that, because, up until now, we have not received any detailed information about the times that they met with Murdoch and the times that they discussed the licence fee settlement.

During the licence fee debate, James Murdoch made various statements, including one at a lecture in a Scotland, that particularly focused on reducing the licence fee so that the Murdoch empire could exploit and develop at the expense of the BBC. There is an issue that must be addressed, and we will have to return to it time and again not only in the context of local radio, but of BBC funding itself.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

I can put on the record that I have never discussed the licence fee with Rupert Murdoch or the Murdoch empire. Funnily enough, the most influential discussion that I have had was with the Guardian Media Group, which complained about the size of the BBC website.