Transport for London Bill [Lords]

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John McDonnell

Monday 16th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman said that the amendments were tabled late—I think that is the allegation—and that the sponsors of the Bill could not respond. The amendments were placed before the Clerks in time—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. One second. Do not worry; relax. Let me have a little look at this. I assure the House that the amendments were not tabled late by the hon. Gentleman. There was a mistake in the Table Office, but that has absolutely nothing to do with what is being said. We do not need any more points of order on that as we have clarified the matter well. I am sure, Mr Blackman, that we will proceed in a courteous way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. If the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) wishes to intervene, quite rightly it is up to the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) whether he gives way. He has made it clear that he does not want to give way again.

[John McDonnell]

Why is that, do you think?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I have no idea. It is not for the Chair to judge, thank goodness, and I do not need a crystal ball to work it out. The good thing is that the hon. Gentleman has at least made it clear that he does not want to take any more interventions and he wants to get his speech under way.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

I beg to move amendment 1, in page 1, leave out paragraph (2).

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 4, in clause 1, page 5, at end insert

“save as provided for in subsection (3).”

Amendment 5, page 2, line 6, at end insert

“save as provided for in subsection (3).”

Amendment 6, page 2, line 6, at end insert—

“(3) Sections 4, 5 and 6 of this Act shall not come into force until the Secretary of State has arranged for, and published the report of, a review of the—

(a) potential risks to the assets of Transport for London arising from the exercise of the relevant powers to be conferred thereby, and

(b) likely effectiveness of measures put in place by Transport for London in mitigation.”

Amendment 7, in clause 3, page 2, line 17, after “TfL”, insert

“following consultation with the Greater London Assembly, and the publication of a report of such, and”.

Amendment 8, page 2, line 19, leave out “two” and insert “three”.

Amendment 9, page 2, line 25, leave out “two” and insert “three”.

Amendment 15, page 2, leave out clause 4.

Amendment 10, in clause 4, page 2, line 37, at end insert—

“(1A) The consent of the Mayor under subsection (1) may only be granted after the Mayor has consulted, and published a report of such consultation:

(a) the Greater London Assembly

(b) the London boroughs

(c) the City of London

(d) passenger representative bodies, and

(e) relevant trades unions.”

Amendment 11, page 2, line 38, leave out “all or any” and insert “no more than 25%”.

Amendment 12, page 2, line 41, leave out

“including the creation of priority as between changes.”

Amendment 13, page 3, line 9, leave out subsection (5).

Amendment 30, page 3, line 13, leave out

“Except for the property identified in the Schedule to this Act”.

Amendment 14, page 3, line 15, at end insert—

“(6A) TfL shall not charge any property for any of the purposes mentioned in subsection (2) unless—

(a) it has consulted the Greater London Assembly and published the results of that consultation, or

(b) the property falls within a category identified in the Schedule to this Act.”

Amendment 31, page 3, line 15, at end insert—

“(6A) Any consent of the Secretary of State given under subsection (6A) above shall be given in an order made by the Secretary of State.

(6B) A statutory instrument containing (whether alone or with other provisions) an order under subsection (6B) above shall not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.

(6C) An order under subsection (6A) above shall in each case include—

(a) the land registry title number or numbers of any property or properties to be charged, and

(b) a specification of the proprietor or proprietors of the charge.

(6D) The proprietor or proprietors of the charge under subsection (6D)(b) may not be a joint venture partner of Transport for London or one of its subsidiaries.”

Amendment 33, in clause 7, page 5, line 25, at end insert—

“(5) TfL shall conduct a review, and publish a report, after 12 months of the operation of the s49 Transport for London Act 2008 powers, as amended by this section, of the use and impact of those powers in relation to investment by subsidiaries of TfL in derivatives in order to limit exposure to changes in interest rates, exchange rates, commodity prices or other matters specified in s49(3) of the 2008 Act.

(6) Each subsidiary of TfL shall publish a report each year of the use made of the powers under s49 of the Transport for London Act 2008, as amended by this section, in relation to investments made in derivatives, or equivalent instruments, in order to limit exposure to changes in interest rates, exchange rates, commodity prices or other matters specified in s49(3) of the 2008 Act.”

[John McDonnell]

May I say at this stage that I would like to press amendments 1 and 33 to a Division? Amendment 1 straightforwardly takes out paragraph (2) from the preamble of the Bill. Paragraph (2) refers to the powers set out in clause 4. I will then turn to amendments 4, 5, 6, 7 and so on.

Amendment 1 is consequential to amendment 15. What they do is delete the powers of Transport for London, set out in the Bill, to borrow by giving securities in the way prescribed in clause 4. The amendments strike at one of the main objectives of the Bill. Even if we took out clause 4, and even clause 5, we would still retain clause 7, which I support. Clause 7 concerns the mitigation of risk through hedging powers to be provided to Transport for London.

I want to delete clause 4, to which amendments 1 and 15 relate, because I do not consider that it should be part of a private Bill. The purpose of the clause and the scale of the potential financial responsibility levied on London council tax payers and taxpayers militate against this being a private Bill; it should be a public Bill. Clause 4 should not stand in the Bill.

Christmas Adjournment

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John McDonnell

Thursday 18th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[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.

Jobseeker’s Allowance (Sanctions)

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John McDonnell

Thursday 18th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

An answer that was given a year and a half ago was misleading. If that is the case, would it not have been appropriate for the Minister who gave that misleading answer to come to the House at the first opportunity, as is the convention, to correct the information? As far as I am aware, there has been no correction whatever. I ask you to take this matter up, Mr Deputy Speaker, as a point of procedure with the relevant Department.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

What we need to do is to get to the end of the debate. The point is well made and it has been taken on board.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. [Interruption.] Order, everybody! Let us have a little bit of Christmas spirit. The Minister must give way when there is a point of order.

[John McDonnell]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Allegations have been made here that have been responded to previously. If the right hon. Lady is raising matters in relation to me, I am quite happy to respond to them if she gives way.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

We are not going to get into that. It is Christmas, and this is the final debate before the recess, so we ought to take on board where we are and be careful about the comments that are made.

Finance Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John McDonnell

Tuesday 1st July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

The Minister will respond just before 2.50 and we have four more speakers.

[John McDonnell]

I will be fairly brief.

Under the last Government, I moved amendments like the new clause on virtually every Finance Bill. It has always made me anxious when Governments resist the requirement to provide information. That is all that is sought in the new clause. It simply looks to ensure that the House is properly informed about the impact of a differential tax rate. For the life of me, I could not understand why such amendments were resisted by the last Government, and I cannot understand why the new clause is being resisted now.

Pensions Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John McDonnell

Tuesday 29th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. There comes a time when accuracy is important in this House. John MacGregor, as Secretary of State, gave assurances that when British Rail was privatised pensions would be protected. He said not that they would have the same protections as private companies but that pensions would be protected. There is a point of accuracy, so that Ministers do not attempt to mislead this House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I am sure that nobody would deliberately mislead this House—let us clear that one up. That is not a point of order but it has certainly been corrected for the record, which will be read tomorrow.

Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John McDonnell

Thursday 25th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I cannot hear the Minister speak. If he does not wish to give way, that is his choice, but I must be able to hear what he has to say.

[John McDonnell]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Would it not be right to get it on the record that it is etiquette for one Front Bencher to give way to another Front Bencher in a debate of this sort?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

It might be normal practice to give way, but it is still the Minister’s choice whether he wishes to or not. Obviously on this occasion he does not wish to give way.

Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John McDonnell

Tuesday 19th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

It is that, but there is also a wider agenda of making people feel guilty just because they are out of work and guilty just because—temporarily, in most instances—they have to depend on some benefits. This is about scapegoating and victimising the poor and people who cannot get a job. It is about harassment and exploitation. At the heart of that is the judgment that Parliament was not properly informed of what those schemes and regulations meant. That is what the judgment said.

I make it clear that I shall vote against the Bill because it is immoral and wrong. Before we vote to render those schemes lawful retrospectively, it is important that Members are aware of what we will be supporting. Boycott Workfare is an organisation that set up— [Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. There seems to be a phone ringing somewhere. Wherever it is, we can certainly hear it.

[John McDonnell]

It is most probably someone looking for a job.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Let us hope that somebody answers it, then.

[John McDonnell]

Before we vote tonight, it is important we know that we will be voting to support the workfare schemes being introduced by the Government. The Bill will enable the sanctions to be continued and retrospectively made legal, because people refused to go on those schemes—I think justifiably so with regard to many of them. Let us take some examples from the Boycott Workfare website. Tesco is a classic, and one example refers to

“a fifty-six year old man who worked at Tesco for 40 hrs a week for 6 weeks for no pay.”

He was

“given the worst job, constantly filling freezers in the hope he would be taken on. After the 6 weeks were up the manager asked him if he would like to stay on for some extra weeks,”

and the man said,

“‘with pay?’”

The manager said no,

“why would he pay him when he can pick the phone up and get more unemployed people who have to work for nothing”?

That was at Tesco, and the list goes on. Poundland is a classic example of an organisation exploiting unemployed people, time and time again recruiting shelf stackers while laying off other workers. Primark is another example. One young woman who went to Primark said:

“The Jobcentre paid travel money but no lunch. I worked three days a week, 10 am to 4.30 pm or 5 pm with one half-hour break.”

Primark

“don’t pay any money. It was nearly six months, from January to June. When I finished the placement I took my CV and I asked the managers if they had any vacancies. They said, ‘Not yet—we’ll call you when we do.’ I haven’t had a call.”

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John McDonnell

Wednesday 15th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I have been given no indication by the Treasury Bench or any Department that there is to be a statement this evening. I am sure that the Treasury Bench will have heard the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns.

[John McDonnell]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. We have just finished the Report stage of the Welfare Reform Bill, but we have failed yet again to reach major parts of the Bill, particularly amendments on the cap on benefits, which I totally oppose and think are a disturbing element of the Bill. As the Leader of the House is here, may I say to him through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that we are exhibiting to the general public that the House is not working if we are not reaching major parts of such an important Bill. I would hope that the Government would consider pausing, as they did with the NHS Bill, and thinking again in the light of today’s debate.

Superannuation Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and John McDonnell

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Maude]

The amendments respond to concerns raised by Opposition Members on Second Reading in the other place about the potential for the caps in what is now clause 2 to be revived after being put into abeyance, which is what I propose to do next week before the House rises and before the new scheme is laid. The Government also proposed the amendments to respond to the comments about the unusual use of a sunrise provision in clause 3(4)(c) that were made in the third report of the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, published on 28 October. My noble Friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire provided a full response to the Committee in his letter of 1 December. We are grateful to the Committee for its report.

The Committee also commented on the other provisions in clause 3 which would enable, by order, the caps included in clause 2 to be repealed and also to be extended by six months at a time. That would override the so-called sunset provision in clause 3(3), which would otherwise mean that the caps on civil service compensation provided in clause 2 would expire automatically after 12 months. The Committee said that “these arrangements are complex”, but added that the two delegated powers

“do not appear to the Committee to be inappropriate”.

However, the Committee was not so persuaded of the need for the power in clause 3 to revive the caps in clause 2, that being an unlimited power that would have been available to any future Government in circumstances that we cannot predict today. The amendments respond to that point. The Government accept that there should not be an unlimited power to revive clause 2. Lords amendment 6 therefore provides for subsection 3(4)(c) itself to expire three years after Royal Assent, which is in effect a sunset of the sunrise provision. I can see why some people might say that that was a bit complex, but I think that, when fully parsed, it makes perfectly good sense.

The sunset of the power to revive clause 2 would mean that it would be there, as the Government intend, as a fallback to revive the caps in clause 2, just in case they were needed because of future problems in implementing the new civil service compensation scheme. However, the introduction of the three-year time limit should provide a reassurance that the power to revive clause 2 would not be available indefinitely to future Governments.

The caps are there as a potential fall-back so that we can be certain—as both the last Government and we have wanted to be—that we can reform the civil service compensation scheme. We have an absolute obligation, in the public interest, to address the unfair and unaffordable nature of the current scheme, and we need to ensure that if a legal challenge is mounted to our revised scheme—and it has been suggested that that may well happen—there is a fall-back option, albeit one that we have absolutely no desire to use. We do not expect or intend to use the powers to impose the caps in clause 2; what we want is to see in operation as quickly as possible is the reformed civil service compensation scheme. We are determined that, if all else fails, there will be a fall-back position so that we are not left high and dry—as the last Government were—because of a legal challenge to the details of the new scheme.

Before the new scheme is laid before Parliament, I intend an order to be made under clause 3(4)(a) to repeal the caps in clause 2 in relation to any new scheme. We intend the order to include a saving provision so that the caps could be applied if, and only if, the old unreformed scheme had to be reintroduced. The saving provision would allow that to happen automatically, without the need to use the revival power by order under clause 3(4)(c). I should make it clear that this saving provision would apply only if there were an attempt to revert to the old scheme. An order under clause 3(4)(c) would be required, subject to the affirmative procedure, if it were ever proposed to revive the caps in clause 2 and to impose them over the new civil service compensation scheme that will be put in place following the completion of this Bill’s passage.

Finally, unless further extended by order under clause 3(4)(b), clause 2 in its entirety—including the saving provision—will expire 12 months after Royal Assent. From that point on, any revival of the caps would have to use the order-making power in clause 3(4)(c), which, because of these Lords amendments, will be available only within three years of Royal Assent. I very much hope that by then the new civil service compensation scheme will be in place and be operating satisfactorily for all concerned—civil servants, departmental employers and the civil service trade unions—and that the taxpayers’ interests and the proper interests of civil servants will be being met. Amendments 4 and 5 are consequential on amendment 6.

[John McDonnell]

The House needs to be aware of what this measure actually means, and I make it clear that I will press my amendment to a Division.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman will be able to move his amendment formally later.

[John McDonnell]

Thank you very much for that advice, Mr Deputy Speaker. I get confused when we are talking about sunset and sunrise clauses.

Let me explain what this measure means. Despite all we have heard today from the Government about their willingness to achieve a negotiated settlement on a new compensation scheme and their wish to ensure that all the trade unions are signed up to it and that it is acceptable both to members of those unions and to people not in those unions, the fact is that they will retain the power, over a three-year period, to impose the caps set out in the Bill.

We should remind ourselves of what those caps are: for a compulsory redundancy, an amount equal to a person’s earnings for 12 months, and that amount for 15 months for a voluntary severance. We heard in evidence in Committee—this has been repeated in the Chamber time and again—that that will mean a cut of up to two thirds in the redundancy payments of many civil servants; 60% to 70% was the figure cited by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Any Government will have the power to impose those caps at a later date, and to impose that level of penalty on civil servants who are made redundant.

If the Government are confident of being able to negotiate an agreed solution under the new scheme in this coming period, why do they need the right, over a three-year period, to impose these caps unilaterally? I still think that if they sought to do that, it would be subject to a legal challenge, but why would a Government seek to retain that power if they were entering into negotiations with good will, genuinely seeking an agreement, and taking every reasonable step to secure one?

My amendment simply seeks to reduce the period to 12 months, as an act of good will on behalf of this House in respect of its employees in the civil service. I believe the Government have set the period at three years because they want to maintain their original purpose for the Bill, as previously described: to use it as a blunt instrument to bludgeon the unions into submission so they agree to the Government’s proposals. That is unacceptable. I also think this will be another factor that leads to people rejecting the overall scheme in the ballots that are currently taking place, and instead moving on to take action to stop the scheme being imposed upon themselves and their fellow trade union members.

I urge the Government to think again, as 12 months should give them sufficient time to negotiate and introduce a new scheme, and to introduce any reforms or amendments that might be needed to hone it to make it more workable if there were any problems with its implementation. It is unacceptable for the Government to have the threat of this blunt instrument to hold over civil servants for three years. Introducing this measure would be another contributory factor to the deterioration in the relationship between the Government and their staff, who are meant to implement, with high morale, the policies they introduce.