Petitions
Debate between Kevin Brennan and Jessica Morden
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of Colin and Janet Smith and Lin Ashcroft from Newport East, who have spent many years fighting for their loved ones, who were victims of the contaminated blood scandal.
Colin and Janet’s son, Colin, died aged just seven, having received blood products contaminated with HIV and hepatitis C at just 10 months old. Just a few months before Colin’s death, Lin lost her husband, Bill, who also contracted HIV through contaminated blood products. For years both families, like so many others impacted by this disaster, faced discrimination. On Friday, Colin told me that 30 years ago they would have been more likely to get a brick through the window instead of signatures of support, which makes the stack of paper I have here today even more important. Almost 1,000 signatures from people across Newport East have been collected by Laura Smith, the Smiths’ daughter-in-law, who deserves much thanks. They were collected with much love for Colin.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Newport East,
Declares that people who received infected blood and who have suffered as a consequence have, along with their families, waited for too long for redress.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to implement the recommendations in the Second Interim Report of the Infected Blood Inquiry without delay.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002980]
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition in the same terms as that so eloquently presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) just a few moments ago. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), who has led the fight for justice for victims of the infected blood scandal in this House. My constituent Sue Sparkes lost her husband, Les, owing to infected blood in 1990, leaving their two sons without a father. She has been tirelessly fighting for justice ever since.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Cardiff West,
Declares that people who received infected blood and who have suffered as a consequence have, along with their families, waited for too long for redress.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to implement the recommendations in the Second Interim Report of the Infected Blood Inquiry without delay.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002984]
Intellectual Property: British Economy
Debate between Kevin Brennan and Jessica Morden(7 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I will focus my remarks fairly narrowly on an area that the hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams) dealt with in his speech. I congratulate him not just on securing the debate but on his continuing efforts in this area. Although we sit on opposite sides of the House, we find ourselves agreeing more often than not on what needs to be done in relation to intellectual property.
The area I want to focus on is so-called IPTV devices. Hon. Members may well be aware that through such devices it is possible to access content, including television programmes, films and music, without paying for it. Such services are normally paid for in some way, shape or form, and ultimately the owners of the intellectual property receive some reward from such a payment. It is a serious matter when a technology emerges that enables consumers to access content without its creators being able to get a reward. Ultimately, that gives rewards to criminals, often located overseas, who effectively steal that content and enable people who do not always fully understand that what they are doing is illegal to consume it in the UK.
As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, use of these devices is growing like wildfire. I therefore say to the Minister that the time for inaction is over. The woods are burning out there. This is rapidly becoming a serious issue and, quite frankly, the Government’s response so far has been too slow. I feel justified in saying that because this issue was raised in the Committee that considered the Digital Economy Bill last year—many months ago—when we tabled amendments to encourage the Government to focus on it. In fairness, the Government are well aware of it, because they have referred to it and to the need to do something about it in reports. Why they produced a piece of legislation—it is currently in the House of Lords—entitled the Digital Economy Bill containing all sorts of measures that are perhaps peripheral to the digital economy without tackling this issue is a question that the Minister might care to answer.
When the Government were reminded of their own awareness that there was a serious issue with IPTV devices, and when amendments were tabled in Committee, they took no action, which is another mystery. When, further down the line, they have been reminded of that in the other place—the Bill has also been debated extensively in the House of Lords—all they have come up with so far, many months later, is a call for views. The call was issued recently by the Intellectual Property Office, located in Newport, next door to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden).
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
The debate rightly focuses on the regulatory regime, and there are important points to be made about that, but can I put on record my appreciation of the staff at the Intellectual Property Office in Newport? They are a highly skilled, high-performing workforce, who are a big asset to the city. Does he agree that continuing to invest in developing the office and those staff is important, given the challenges highlighted earlier by the hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams)?
Kevin Brennan
Yes, my hon. Friend makes a good point. She is right to praise the workforce at the Intellectual Property Office and she is also right to point out that continuing investment in their work is extremely important. I have been concerned for many years about a culture in Government; I do not point the finger simply at the current Government, because it has existed for quite a long period of time, particularly in the old Department of Trade and Industry but also in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, in which I was a Minister for a short period. It is a culture that is rightly suspicious of regulation of business but too cautious about taking steps to regulate when to do so would be good for business. This is one instance in which it is quite clear that good regulation is good for business and good for a business and industry that is hugely important to this country.
It is welcome that the Government have gone from a position of denying that we need an industrial strategy, which was the ludicrous position before the current Prime Minister took over, to including the words “industrial strategy” in the title of the Department that the Minister represents, and even including the creative industries as part of our industrial strategy. There is recognition of the importance but not of the urgency of the action required.
Enterprise Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting)
Debate between Kevin Brennan and Jessica Morden(8 years, 9 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kevin Brennan
My hon. Friend is right. Exclusions have been made for those who serve our country, and I think these workers also serve our country in what they do—which is, as she said, difficult, technical and sometimes dangerous work.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
I commend my hon. Friend for the argument he is making in support of Magnox workers. Those workers include a constituent of mine, who rightly pointed out not only that she was extremely shocked to find herself included in these redundancy terms but that, if we change people’s terms and conditions at this stage, the industry is very much threatened by losing the vital skills we need to do this decommissioning work.
Kevin Brennan
I said earlier in the Committee that Government Whips should be seen but not heard, but of course that convention does not apply to Opposition Whips in Committee, as all Committee members will know. That is particularly useful, as it allows my hon. Friend to raise a constituency issue of such direct importance to what is under discussion. I am sure her constituents will take note of what she is doing in the Committee to defend their interests.
As I said, these companies are in a unique position. They are mostly engaged in managing the safe closure of nuclear facilities, which is a hugely important task that is very difficult to manage. By its nature, it involves working towards a specific end date, at which point the employees will in effect make themselves redundant. They are in a particularly different category. To get someone with the necessary skills to commit to that task when they are in, say, their early or mid-30s, we need to ensure that they know they will be provided for if they successfully complete their task by the time they reach their mid to late 50s, when finding re-employment in a similar role with their skills would be potentially very difficult.
As we have heard, if these companies cannot afford the packages necessary to compensate someone for the loss of their role when their task is completed, the companies will find it extremely difficult to prevent these highly skilled workers, who were mobile in earlier parts of their career, from simply leaving. That, in itself, will ultimately drive up the costs and risks associated with decommissioning and exacerbate an already difficult skills shortage in the industry.
Legislating now, as the Government are doing, to override long-standing arrangements in the nuclear sector where the employees involved have kept their end of the bargain faithfully, is pretty unconscionable in my opinion. How can it be right that workers who have stayed with a company to deliver successfully the safety commissioning of a site see their promised redundancy compensation reneged on by the Government when it is due to be paid?
The Treasury justification for applying the cap to the employees of those companies, as I understand it, is the old chestnut of the Office for National Statistics judging them to be publicly controlled. That technical, statistical designation, however, does not mean that applying the cap to those workers is either fair or necessarily value for money for taxpayers in the long term. It is unfair unilaterally to strike down agreements between companies and their employees. It will drive up overall costs for decommissioning as recruitment and retention in the relevant sectors take a hit. There is also no proof that taxpayers will receive any benefit, as the private operators of the companies often receive higher incentive payments under their contracts as a result.
Unless the Government decide to act on this, and I hope they do, employees in the sector will note that when it comes to pension provision and other issues the Treasury has excluded them from the public sector, but it considers them within scope for the cap in the Bill. Proceeding with imposing the cap on the employees of those companies will store up significant industrial relations issues. One can only guess how they will feel —actually, we do not have to guess, because we know from the evidence that we have received, which I will come on to in a moment. How will they feel when they discover that the Secretary of State considers them to be fat cats requiring legislation to limit their payments, even though they are employed by the private sector, while the Government absolutely reject any limit on anyone working in the banking sector? Why is a privatised banker not given the fat-cat treatment by the Secretary of State, but nuclear decommissioning workers are? Yet again it seems to be up with the bankers and down with the workers with this Government. What a shocking value-free zone the policy is, if the Government stick to it and do not accept that they have got it wrong and should support our amendment.
We have received strong representations from Magnox workers and from the trade unions that have represented them so ably. Other companies in the sector are covered and they are referred to in new schedule 3. For the record and for the sake of inclusivity in my remarks I will name those included in the new schedule: Sellafield Ltd, Westinghouse Springfields Fuels Ltd, Magnox Ltd, National Nuclear Laboratory, International Nuclear Services, Atomic Weapons Establishment Ltd, Low Level Waste Repository Ltd, Dounreay Site Restoration Ltd, RSRL Winfrith and RSRL Harwell. Note that none of those companies is called Fat Cats Ltd.