Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Margot James and Jack Dromey

Tuesday 12th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Margot James]

I remind the hon. Lady that the Government set the national living wage, but only after consultation with the independent Low Pay Commission. It is the commission’s view that we need to have several levels of the national minimum wage because youth unemployment is persistently higher than unemployment among those above the age of 25. The policy is really to balance maximum earning power with maximum levels of employment.

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

According to the Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, the last time wages were stagnant for so long was 150 years ago, when Gladstone was Prime Minister, Darwin was launching the theory of evolution and trade unions were illegal. Now we know from Library figures that, year on year, wages went up under the previous Labour Government and, year on year, wages have gone down under this Conservative Government. Is it not simply the truth that workers get a pay rise under Labour and a pay cut under the Tories?

[Margot James]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that this Government are concerned not just about pay, but about employment. If we look at the record of the previous Labour Government—or, indeed, that of any Labour Government—we see that their record on employment is poor. The record of this Government is the maximum number of jobs, with more than 1 million new jobs created, which is an important point. If he wants to talk about anniversaries, let me say that this week is the 10th anniversary of the financial crisis, and I remind him of the deficit that this Government inherited following that crash.

Blacklisting

Debate between Margot James and Jack Dromey

Tuesday 5th September 2017 Westminster Hall

[Margot James]

I will write to the hon. Gentleman on that matter. We expect high standards of corporate governance for major contracts awarded by the Government. If there is evidence of companies acting in the present day in not only a disreputable but a potentially illegal manner, that will be taken into consideration.

[Jack Dromey]

To press the Minister further on that point, we have heard powerful evidence today in relation to both Crossrail and Big Ben. Does she agree that if there is evidence of complicity in blacklisting, the companies concerned should not get public contracts until such time as they have remedied the bad practices of the past and, indeed, the present?

[Margot James]

The shadow Minister makes a very reasonable point, which I will consider further. I think there is nothing to disagree with in what he has said.

We want to build on the work already undertaken by the Information Commissioner’s Office looking at profiling and big data analytics. The Information Commissioner’s call for evidence, once complete, will be the most recent and authoritative source of data that we have. I can assure hon. Members that the Government will consider the evidence collected and the report on it very carefully indeed.

I want to acknowledge the request from the right hon. Member for Delyn (David Hanson). I have indeed received correspondence from Mr Alan Wainwright. I have looked at it briefly and will examine it thoroughly. The right hon. Gentleman also asked me to look again at the situation with regard to the Shrewsbury 24, and I will write to him on that subject as well.

The Government will continue to take a very close interest in this matter. If the Information Commissioner finds any evidence of current blacklisting, perpetrators can expect to feel the full force of the law, and I am sure—to go back to the shadow Minister’s intervention—that that would have implications for contracting as well. In the meantime, in the absence of clear, strong and compelling evidence to the effect that blacklisting is widespread, we remain of the view that the blacklisting regulations, alongside the proposed changes to the data protection rules, are appropriate and robust tools— the increased fines and accountability are further disincentives—to counter this abhorrent and illegal practice.

I urge all hon. Members to talk to their constituents who raise these matters with them and to the trade unionists in their constituency who have been affected, and to use the call for evidence as a means of exposing any current practice that might be continuing, so that we can eradicate this appalling abuse of people’s human rights at work once and for all.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Margot James and Jack Dromey

Tuesday 27th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Margot James]

Employment tribunals are a matter for the Ministry of Justice, but I am in discussions with it over the review of employment tribunals that it has undertaken and we keep a watching brief on the matters the hon. Lady raises.

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

What does the Minister have to say to the young dustman who said to me, “Jack, I’ve just got married. We’re about to have a baby. We’re paying a fortune in rent. We’d love to buy our own home, but no chance, because I’m on zero-hours contracts”? Is not the truth that he and millions of workers like him have seen through the pretence that the Conservative party is somehow the party of the working class, and the false claims and the phoney promises, and have simply had enough of falling pay, squeezed living standards and insecurity in the world of work?

[Margot James]

I think we should have perspective on these matters, because less than 3% of the UK workforce are actually on zero-hours contracts, and according to the most recent research 70% of those people are content with the number of hours they are working. I do accept the hon. Gentleman’s point about his constituent, however, and that is precisely the scenario that Matthew Taylor has reviewed and will report on very soon.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Margot James and Jack Dromey

Tuesday 14th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Margot James]

As I said in my previous answer on national insurance, the increase in taxes, which itself is under review, will be ruling out—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”] In terms of the maternity and paternity issues raised by the hon. Lady, I should hasten to add, the consultation will run its course this summer and she will have an answer before the end of the year.

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

Does the Minister begin to understand the sense of grievance on the part of the growing army of the self-employed who are reluctant conscripts to self-employment in the gig economy? They work in a twilight world of insecurity without basic rights, but they will now have to pay more in tax although there was not one measure in the Budget to put the burden on the shoulders of those truly responsible: the Ubers of this world.

[Margot James]

The hon. Gentleman knows that the Taylor review is currently examining all the issues that he raises. I am very concerned about the plight of some low-paid workers—they may well actually be workers, rather than self-employed. That is up to the courts and the Government to conclude later this year, but I assure him that we take the issues he raises very seriously.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Margot James and Jack Dromey

Tuesday 13th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

Given the sorry history of Brexit broken promises, does the Minister understand the widespread cynicism expressed about the idea that rights will be protected post-Brexit, including on a continuing basis? Does she agree with the Brexit promise-breaker par excellence, the Foreign Secretary, that these crucial rights are back-breaking?

[Margot James]

The hon. Gentleman prejudges the situation by saying that we have had a chance to break Brexit promises before we have even started the negotiations. The Prime Minister could not have been clearer—she has been supported in this at the Dispatch Box by the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union—that workers’ rights will be protected and possibly even enhanced.

Care (Older People)

Debate between Margot James and Jack Dromey

Tuesday 6th September 2011 Westminster Hall

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Streeter. I congratulate the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), both on securing the debate and on the sincerity that shone through in her contribution. I strongly agree with a number of the points that she made.

During the summer, I addressed a meeting convened by the Birmingham branch of Carers UK—an outstanding organisation nationally and in Birmingham. What shone through was that there is no more noble cause than caring. At that meeting, 200 were present, including people who were cared for, carers and the organisations that support them. Deep concern was expressed on two fronts, the first of which relates to an issue that we are not here to debate: the cuts to benefits and the work being done by the Hardest Hit coalition, which includes the Royal National Institute of Blind People, Mencap and others. The second issue relates to the growing crisis in social care. In one sense, the crisis is the consequence of a good thing—people are living longer—but there are undoubtedly two major problems. One, I agree, is that successive Governments have failed to implement a long-term solution to the growing crisis in social care. The other is the impact being felt now of cuts in public expenditure. The Government are going too far too fast, and that is having an increasingly serious impact on the most vulnerable in our society.

Looking to the future, the Dilnot review offers a new dawn. Its recommendations have been widely welcomed across the political spectrum. As we move towards implementation, it is key that Dilnot is fully funded and that its recommendations in respect of eligibility are carried through, so that what happened in Birmingham—I will say more about that later—never happens again. I agree strongly with the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford that its recommendations must be acted on as soon as possible. She is right that there has been a propensity in the past to kick such issues into the long grass. That cannot be the case in future. I sense that, across the spectrum, there is a desire in the House for the Government to act as soon as possible. They will unquestionably have the full support of the Opposition if they do.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s enthusiasm for enacting the Dilnot report in law as soon as possible, but I have reservations about whether we should enact it in full as recommended. To give one example of my concern, does he agree that the £50,000 cap above which nobody should have to pay out of their own purse for long-term care or personal care at home might represent a large proportion of some people’s savings and assets, but that for home owners in the property-rich markets of the south-east, it might represent a small proportion? I am concerned on that and various other points. We should not rush but should subject Dilnot to proper critical investigation.

[Jack Dromey]

I accept that some of the issues that Dilnot identified will have to be worked through, but I think that there is a broad welcome for Dilnot ending what has caused so much grief in the past. People have had to sell their homes. People who spent their lives hoping to pass on wealth to their children have found in the twilight of their years that that is not possible. We can have an intelligent debate about the detail of Dilnot, but the cap is welcome. The sooner we implement Dilnot, the better. The problem is that, even if everyone gets a move on, that might be some years away, in which case we must address the here and now during the next two to three years.

WRVS has done excellent work in the field, and has said rightly that the Government must both address the adequacy of the funding that they have made available and ensure that it is wisely spent and properly monitored. The inescapable reality is that the consequences of the cuts to public expenditure are devastating for the most vulnerable in our society. To use the city that I represent as an example, Birmingham city council has cut £212 million from its budget this year—the largest cut in local government history. It cut £51 million from the social care budget, rising to £118 million over three years, and consequently sought to remove substantial need provision for 4,100 people. The council was prevented from going down that path only by a judicial review taken by four brave families, whose cases were heart-breaking.

I have seen some of the consequences in my own experience. One example is an absolutely wonderful couple, Faith and Frank Bailey. Faith Bailey is terminally ill. She left hospital some months ago, so that she could spend the remainder of her time on earth with her husband. They are a devoted couple; it is wonderful to see them holding hands at the age of pushing 80. The problem was that when she left hospital, her night-time care was restricted to two nights a week. She struggled as a consequence, and the impact on her husband was devastating. He was becoming increasingly exhausted, and neither of them could cope. The situation was causing them great distress. I am pleased to say that they are now in the admirable New Oscott village, where they will be cared for properly. However, those decent people who built Birmingham and Britain looked forward, in the twilight of their years, to being together for the remainder of her time, and to see them suffer in such a way was heart-breaking.

This is not just about the human consequences. As the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford was right to highlight, it is also about the financial folly of failing to recognise that not investing might cost more in the medium to long term. The King’s Fund report charts what happens in social care as a result: the number of people admitted to hospital rises. I am sure that we have all seen that in our respective constituencies. I remember one example in the constituency next door to mine in Birmingham. A fine young man who was seriously assaulted spent 18 months in hospital as the consequence of a failure to provide a social care package. After he had spent just over 12 months in hospital, he was told that he could leave if an adequate social care package were provided for him, but because it was not, he stayed in hospital. He was desperate to go home and his family wanted him back, and it was costing the national health service £2,400 a week in net additional costs to support him. That cannot be right. The impact on the national health service is an issue.

To give another example from Birmingham, all parties supported building 10 centres, such as the admirable Perry Tree centre, across Birmingham to provide intermediate care as a bridge between leaving hospital and going back home or into a home. Perry Tree is outstanding, and the atmosphere is wonderful. However, sadly, no more centres will be built. That will mean bed blocking on a massive scale in the national health service.