European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Luciana Berger and Chuka Umunna

Committee: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 7th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Umunna]

That is very interesting. I note that the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath is still in his place. I saw in The Sun, no less, in November that he was demanding—demanding!—that the Prime Minister spend a £32 billion Brexit dividend on the NHS, so I hope that he will be supporting our amendment as well.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making some very important points. It is interesting to hear Conservative Members scoffing and laughing at this. This was not just one of many pledges—it was the key pledge. I am looking at a collection of photographs of all the key proponents of the Vote Leave campaign. It was their No. 1 commitment to this country if it voted to leave the European Union. On that basis, does not this Chamber have a responsibility to honour the pledge on which people voted to leave the EU?

[Mr Umunna]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend.

For all these reasons I have tabled amendment 11, which, as the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) stated, is very reasonable. It requires the Prime Minister to set out how the UK’s withdrawal from the EU will impact on the national finances, particularly on health spending. In short, she needs to set out how she is going to make good on that Vote Leave pledge to spend £350 million extra per week on the NHS.

Blacklisting

Debate between Luciana Berger and Chuka Umunna

Wednesday 23rd January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House notes that in 2009 the Information Commissioner’s Office raided the Consultation Association which revealed a blacklist and files on more than 3,000 individuals which had been used by more than 40 construction companies to vet individuals and deny people employment for reasons including being a member of a trade union or having raised health and safety concerns and that extensive personal information on individuals and their families was held; recognises that the majority of individuals have still not been informed that they were on the blacklist nor given the opportunity to seek redress, despite recent confirmation that blacklisting checks took place on Olympic construction sites and allegations that the practice took place on public projects including Ministry of Defence sites, Portcullis House and Crossrail; further notes that at recent Scottish Affairs Select Committee hearings on blacklisting the Information Commissioner Investigations Manager raised concerns that there may have been collusion by police officers and security services in the compilation of blacklists; and in addition that it was also alleged at the hearings that a blacklist of environmental activists was compiled; and calls on the Government to immediately begin an investigation into the extent to which blacklisting took place and may be taking place, including on public sector projects, and to ensure that appropriate and effective sanctions are in place to tackle and prevent blacklisting.

The motion relates to a secretive, insidious and shady practice that has brought shame on our construction industry. Those who were responsible for it have yet to be properly held to account for their actions, which is why we have brought this matter to the House today. After seeing huge construction projects successfully delivered safely, on budget and on time by our construction sector—such projects include the Olympic park venues and Heathrow terminal 5—it gives me no pleasure to raise this matter, but debate this matter we must. It would be a dereliction of duty for us not to do so, given what has come to pass. I heard the comments that the Prime Minister made earlier in response to a question about blacklisting that was put to him in Prime Minister’s questions, and I should say that the manner in which he approached the issue is entirely inappropriate. That is because this is not a party political issue, which is why I provided the Secretary of State with an advance copy of my speech in an effort to build consensus; it is an issue of justice.

Our simple goal with this motion is to help right the wrongs done to people who, dating back to the British industrial revolution, have built and continue to build Britain. They build the airports, the roads and the railways we all use. They build the offices and factories we work in. They build the houses that we live in. Given the hazards of their trade, many of them have lost their lives in so doing over the years. They are our nation’s construction workers. Construction work may be hazardous and not terribly well paid relative to other occupations, but it provides an income to those who do it. It puts food on the plate; it provides a livelihood. But for a long time many of our construction workers have suspected that they were being systematically denied work—work that they were more than qualified to do. As a result, lives have been ruined, families have been torn apart and many have been forced out of the industry. Why? How? How on earth did this end up happening?

It is the usual practice for employers or employment agencies to seek references on potential employees or to otherwise vet them before hiring. Such vetting practices should be, and are on the whole, open, transparent, fair and carried out in compliance with the data protection regime. In the majority of cases such practices would not raise any eyebrows. However, carrying out a blacklist check is quite another matter, and that is what was happening on a grand scale in the construction sector.

Blacklisting involves checking to see whether a worker is on a blacklist and then discriminating against the individual if they appear on it. It involves systematically compiling information on workers which is then used by employers, or people making recruitment decisions, to discriminate against workers, not because of their ability to do the job, but for other, more sinister, reasons. In this case, the reason was simply that they raised health and safety issues and/or that they were an active trade union member.

The extent of blacklisting activity in the construction sector was exposed for all to see following a raid in 2009 by the Information Commissioner’s Office. The raid was carried out by the ICO on the offices of a shadowy and secretive organisation called the Consulting Association following a tip-off. Though the raid occurred in 2009, new details on the activities of the Consulting Association are only just coming to light, thanks to the excellent work of, and the ongoing inquiry into blacklisting by, the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, which has been taking evidence from most of the key protagonists.

Trade unions, including the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians—UCATT—Unite and the GMB have also unearthed much evidence, as has the Blacklist Support Group. I am a proud member of the GMB and Unite unions, and I am proud to have UCATT headquartered in my constituency.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said, and I am a proud member of UCATT. Does he agree that the work it has done on behalf on its members—construction workers up and down the country—led to what we saw in 2009 and that if it had not been for the arduous work it has carried out for many decades, we would not be in the situation we are in now? However, we still have a long way to go.

[Mr Umunna]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend’s comments.

The Consulting Association was born out of the old Economic League, which had been established in 1919 to promote free enterprise and to fight what its supporters saw as collectivism, socialism and communism—left-wing thinking to which they objected. The league was notorious for blacklisting more than 10,000 people, including Members of this House, trade unionists and journalists. In 1991, it was heavily criticised by the old Select Committee on Employment for dishing out clandestine and inaccurate information suggesting that individuals were unsuitable, leading to many being denied employment.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Debate between Luciana Berger and Chuka Umunna

Tuesday 16th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Umunna]

Absolutely, and I would say two things about what my hon. Friend has just said. First, when it comes to the comments of the general counsel, one has to consider that he is passing comment on his masters who are cutting his budget massively. To suggest that that does not weigh on his mind when he makes comments about the Bill is probably quite naive. The second thing I would say is that the independence of the organisation is paramount, and its ability to do its job will be compromised by the changes being made.

Let me point out to the Minister that what people are entitled to do when making a judgment about her party and her Government’s intentions for the commission is to look at the actions they have taken. The catalogue of things that I have just listed has meant not only that people in her own party are incredibly worried about its future, but that many of the stakeholders who work in this area are also worried about it. At the moment, the general view among many people is that we are effectively seeing the abolition of this important organisation by stealth. That is what seems to be happening.

[Luciana Berger]

I should share with my hon. Friend the fact that I worked for the Commission for Racial Equality before it merged into the new body. I know that there are always challenges with any organisation, but the work it did was crucial. Does he, like me, share the concern raised only a few days ago by Brendan Barber, the TUC general secretary, that what the Government are doing essentially makes a mockery of their claim that equality is at the heart of the coalition Government?

[Mr Umunna]

Absolutely. I completely agree with what my hon. Friend has just said.

Amendment of the Law

Debate between Luciana Berger and Chuka Umunna

Thursday 24th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Umunna]

I absolutely agree. As a former employment lawyer, I am well aware of the huge impact that loss of work has on individuals and their families.

We are entitled to ask why the unemployment forecasts have been revised upwards. That has happened because of sluggish growth, and the OBR’s autumn forecast clearly states that the sluggish growth has been caused in no small part by the extreme fiscal consolidation embarked on by the Government. Therefore, there are more people out of work, claiming benefit and not paying income tax due to the policies of this Government. The OBR has said that.

The Chancellor’s strategy on business confidence and investment is clear. As the Government hack off chunks of the public sector—causing, of course, mass public sector job losses—he says that the private sector will automatically step in to fill the gap, and he foresees private sector growth fuelled by a boom in exports and business investment. Business confidence is key, and since this Government took office confidence has fallen. The latest Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales and Grant Thornton UK business confidence monitor shows a continuing downward trend in business confidence in this country for the fourth consecutive quarter. I sincerely hope that that confidence returns, because the people in the communities I represent in Streatham and parts of Clapham, Balham, Tulse Hill and Brixton will be among those who suffer.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my hon. Friend share the concerns that were raised with me yesterday and today by many green businesses that this Budget could have been an opportunity for growth specifically in the green sector, yet the ability of the green investment bank to lend has been delayed until 2015—if it will be able to lend at all? The Government talked yesterday about the green deal, but there are no details about what incentives to many householders across the country might be.

[Mr Umunna]

I agree, and my hon. Friend’s comments bring me neatly to the topic of the Business Secretary’s document, “The Plan for Growth.”

Aside from the two observations that I wanted to make, I want in particular to comment on the document’s proposal to scrap the planned extension of the right to request flexible working to parents of 17-year-olds. That has been cited as a way to ease the burdens of employment regulation on business. “The Plan for Growth” says the administrative burden of extending that flexible working will cost about £500,000. That figure is taken from the Government’s own impact assessment of the measure, published in October last year.

Although “The Plan for Growth” mentions the £500,000 figure, it does not tell the whole story. The assessment agrees that there are additional procedural costs to business in extending the right to request flexible working, which it quantifies as £1.3 million, including the administrative costs I have just mentioned. In addition, there is a £975,000 cost in making adjustments to working patterns. However, that is far outweighed by the savings to business, which are listed in the Government’s impact assessment: £1.1 million from higher productivity, £1.2 million from lower labour turnover and £63,000 from reduced absenteeism, totalling £2.4 million in the first year. Overall, the “net present value” of introducing the measure—the benefit to business—would be £41.2 million. Again that is not my figure, but the Government’s. Therefore, on pure cost grounds, I do not understand how that decision makes any sense.

It is a shame that the Minister for Employment Relations, Consumer and Postal Affairs is not here, because he signed off the impact assessment with the following statement:

“I have read the Impact Assessment and I am satisfied that…it represents a fair and reasonable view of the expected costs, benefits and impact of the policy, and…the benefits justify the costs”.

Never mind the costs of the measure, because there are some things in society that we do not price up and put a market value on—one is the time we spend with our family. That is presumably why the Prime Minister said on 22 January 2010 that he intended to head up the

“most family friendly Government we’ve ever had”

and why, in the lead-up to the general election, the Deputy Prime Minister said:

“We are not casual about the pressure that many parents feel”.

The impact assessment is clear, because under the heading “key non-monetised benefits”, it says that the measure will improve health and well-being, help employees achieve a better work-life balance and help improve family life. For me and my constituents, that is incredibly important, because we face a problem whereby a minority of our young people are engaging in serious violence. A number of stabbings and shootings are taking place in my constituency almost every month. There are many reasons for that, and there is no one magic solution to resolving these issues, but I am clear that we need to help adults spend more time with their families. Extending the right to request flexible working to parents of 17-year-olds—teenagers in that key group—is essential to helping them provide the guidance that many young people need in my community.