Nuclear Management Partners (Sellafield)

Debate between Nia Griffith and Ed Davey

Tuesday 13th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davey]

The different model will ensure that the involvement of the private sector is far more effective and, indeed, more cost-effective. The NDA is obviously responsible for the selection of the strategic partner. The model is now much simpler and is in line with best practice for procurement for such complex operations. That is why I made the analogy with Crossrail and with the Olympics in my answer to the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West. The Olympics was a very complicated project, and Crossrail is a very complicated one, while Sellafield is the most complex industrial site in Europe. Given the complexity of the operations, it does not really make sense to have the complex model set up under the previous Government, and that is why we have taken this decision.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Given the criticisms of the NAO and the PAC, is the Secretary of State really telling us that he knew there were concerns about the model, but did not think that he could change it? Will he explain what monitoring procedures he and the then Minister with responsibility for energy, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), put in place to keep a close eye on the company? Will he tell us what meetings they had, what figures they required and what evidence they wanted from the very beginning of the process for renewing the contract?

[Mr Davey]

To be clear, the renewal of the contract was the NDA’s decision, which we endorsed. When we endorsed it, we obviously asked the chief executive, the chairman and the board of the NDA some serious questions, including about the model, and that led to the review of the model and to today’s statement.

In relation to the renewal of the ongoing contract, I of course met executives from the NMP. I cannot give the hon. Lady details of all the meetings that my Ministers or I had. I am happy to write to her about them; there is nothing secret about them. The key thing was to ensure that the contract renewal covered improved performance during the ongoing review of the model, and the facts show that performance has improved.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Nia Griffith and Ed Davey

Thursday 18th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davey]

First, Mr Speaker, I apologise for not getting the list of questions right. My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) makes a good point. We expect heating oil companies to pass on the savings they are making. They do not hedge in the way that electricity and gas companies do in relation to the long-term forward markets; I understand that heating oil forward purchases are done on a much shorter time scale. We would therefore expect reductions in the price of oil to be fed through much more quickly.

[Nia Griffith]

It is all very well to talk about making the energy companies reduce their bills, but does the Secretary of State not agree that it would be a lot more effective if the regulator had the power to force them to bring prices down, as Labour is proposing?

[Mr Davey]

Actually, it was the last Labour Government who got rid of price regulation from the regulatory tool book. This Government have supported the referral of the energy market to the independent competition authorities. That is a policy that the last Government—and the present Leader of the Opposition when he was doing my job—failed to pursue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davey]

First, it is worth putting it on the record, as it is Christmas, that Britain leads the world in offshore wind, with more offshore wind farms installed than in the rest of the world combined. In the current round of CfD allocations—of course, it has not been completed yet, so I cannot talk about the details—we have ensured that we have sufficient allocation for offshore wind, but we have also ensured that the levy control framework includes further allocations for it, so that the consumer can benefit from dropping prices.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has mentioned the cuts in the energy companies obligation. When those cuts were made, Ministers made it clear that it would not be acceptable if energy companies did not pass them on to consumers. Will the Secretary of State explain why 4 million households have still not received the full saving and what he intends to do about it?

[Mr Davey]

I do not recognise the figures that the hon. Lady gives, and I have to tell her that the energy companies obligation is one of the most successful energy efficiency policies ever implemented. A huge number of steps are being taken, and I hope that any future Government will continue and build upon them. We have given the industry much greater stability—it has never before had three years of reassurance about the future regime, which we gave it last year.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Nia Griffith and Ed Davey

Thursday 6th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davey]

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend, who has been a champion for both the climate cause internationally and solar. He is aware that solar offers the prospect, as indeed do other renewables, of a subsidy-free energy future. The cost of solar has plummeted in recent years and experts suggest that it will continue to fall. That is very exciting and he has been right to champion it. The Government also champion it.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

T5. Consumers in both south and north Wales face higher electricity costs than most of the rest of the country. In his response to my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), was the Minister really suggesting that this is just too difficult to tackle, or will he now tell us more about what talks he is having with regulatory bodies on this problem and what his commitment is to trying to get a fairer system right across the UK?

Cost of Living: Energy and Housing

Debate between Nia Griffith and Ed Davey

Thursday 5th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davey]

The hon. Gentleman has been a champion in the debate on housing in London for many years. I do not think that he can point to any halcyon days over the past 30 years. The cost of housing was the biggest issue when I became an MP in 1997, and for many of my constituents it remains the biggest issue. There have been changes, but many of the housing benefit changes that we have made have actually hit the landlords, not the tenants. I think that he ought to welcome that.

I am very proud of our record of helping people on low incomes, and not only the personal tax allowance increases, but the rest of our help with the cost of living—fuel duty freezes, council tax freezes, free school meals and help with child care. The coalition has listened and is helping. Of course, all those measures take time to feed through. Everyone knows that in some parts of the country people are yet to feel the turnaround, and that was always inevitable. Many people are only now beginning to experience the end of the post-recession squeeze.

I think that what is worrying the Labour party is that in 10 months’ time many more people will be feeling the benefits of the recovery and Labour’s latest economic argument on the cost of living will look ever hollower. Of course, last summer the Opposition already began to switch their economic argument again. It was not the general cost of living or general inflation that they were talking about, or the full basket of goods that people buy; it was a few specific ones. That is why we have today’s debate on energy and housing costs. They are very important issues, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government will, I am sure, take on the housing costs debate. I am sure that he will cover not only our record of low mortgage rates, but our record and our plans to build more houses to reduce housing costs.

However, I want to deal with energy costs, because, unlike the previous Government, we have acted on energy bills. We have taken on the energy companies, unlike the Leader of the Opposition when he was doing my job, when he could have acted but did not. It is interesting to look at the record on energy bills. In almost every year under Labour, energy bills rose: in 2005 they went up by 12%; in 2006 they went up by 20%; and in 2008 they went up by 16%. In the previous Parliament, under Labour, energy bills rose by a whopping 63%, and Labour did nothing. Yet they lecture us. Of course, bills have also risen in this Parliament, but by 8% a year, compared with 11% a year in the previous Parliament.

Labour did act to reform the energy markets; they managed the great feat of reducing the number of energy market firms and creating the big six. In other words, they made it worse and created another mess for us to clear up. This coalition is really reforming the energy market and taking on the energy companies. From day one, we began reforming the market to create real competition, with new competitors. Twelve new independent suppliers have entered the market since 2010, and independents are topping the best-buy tables, increasing their market share from less than 1% to 5% and rising, giving people a real chance not only to freeze their bills, but to cut them.

Just look at what has been done to help people with their energy bills: Ofgem’s reforms are making bills simpler and forcing firms to put consumers on the cheapest tariffs; switching rates are increasing, with switching speeds getting faster; and Government action is taking £50 off the average energy bill. Where the Opposition wanted to legislate for a freeze, with all the impact such regulatory intervention would have on investor confidence, the coalition has worked to ensure that the Government and competition are delivering something better than a freeze. Scottish and Southern Energy, British Gas, npower, Scottish Power and EDF have all announced that they will not increase energy prices this year unless network costs go up or wholesale energy costs rise, and of course they are not.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Given that we have just read this week that SSE will be raising its prices by 8%, that two of its directors have salaries of £1.4 million and that the price of gas is falling, it is absolutely extraordinary that the Secretary of State still thinks that the consumer should pay. What will he do to ensure that consumer prices come down in line with the proper price of gas? The ridiculous profits that these people are making should be stopped now.

[Mr Davey]

SSE has committed itself to a price freeze. The hon. Lady is right that the recent falls in wholesale gas prices suggest that consumers should benefit too. Unlike the previous Government, we have supported the regulator Ofgem in its proposal for the first ever referral of the energy markets to the independent competition authorities. The Leader of the Opposition talks about energy markets, but when he had the power to act, when he could have taken on the big six, and when he was doing my job, he did nothing. He refused three times to back an independent investigation of the energy markets, even though energy bills were rising faster than they are now. He let the energy companies off the hook and the party knows it.

Energy Markets Competition Assessment

Debate between Nia Griffith and Ed Davey

Thursday 27th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davey]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Labour party created the big six, and now it seems to be worried about the fact that we are trying to take action. Its policy would entrench the big six, and would undermine the competition that we have delivered. The Labour party set up Ofgem, and now it wants to abolish it. People listening to the Labour party and looking at its record must be astonished that it has the gall even to pretend that it has a sensible energy policy.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

In its report on energy prices and fuel poverty, the Select Committee said that Ofgem was failing consumers because it had not been properly using the powers at its disposal. Can the Secretary of State tell us what action he took as a result of that report, why prices have not fallen, and why consumers have repeatedly found themselves in financial difficulties because the Government did not act earlier?

[Mr Davey]

I think that recommendations made by the Select Committee to Ofgem are matters for Ofgem. In the Energy Act 2013, we set out a new approach for my Department, working with Ofgem, and provided for the introduction of a strategy and policy statement. We have made the reforms that we believe are needed to ensure that Ofgem works well with the Government in promoting competition. I am delighted to note that, although the Labour party still seems to want to abolish Ofgem, it supports its proposal for a market investigation reference.

Energy Bills

Debate between Nia Griffith and Ed Davey

Monday 2nd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davey]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. He is also right to put this announcement in the context of all the other things the Government are doing, whether it is the income tax cut that is taking some of our lowest paid out of income tax altogether, delivering a £700 tax cut for people on the basic rate of tax, the council tax freeze or the fuel duty freeze. These things are never admitted by Labour Members, but our constituents are benefiting from them every day in every way.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Many of my constituents who get their energy from SSE saw their prices rise on 15 November. They now understand that they will be paying more through taxation and probably will not see any money from the energy company until April at least. The question they will be asking is whether this Secretary of State ever actually asked any of the energy companies for a price freeze—and if not, why not?

[Mr Davey]

I am surprised that the hon. Lady mentions SSE, because it has announced a £50 price cut from next year and a pledge to keep prices flat until spring 2015, subject obviously to wholesale energy costs. I would have thought that she would welcome SSE’s announcement.

Petrol Prices

Debate between Nia Griffith and Ed Davey

Wednesday 15th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davey]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman supports the fact that the European Commission is investigating the market. It is important that it gets our full support. On the OFT and its finding of possible problems in local markets, I am sure that the OFT does exactly what he says, but it might well need more information to prove manipulation. Again, I call on hon. Members and members of the public to provide such information, if they have it, to the competition authorities.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Last year, Labour called for commodities such as oil to come under the Financial Conduct Authority’s regulatory net, but Ministers refused to act. Not only are people in rural areas hit by high fuel prices, but many of them rely on oil for heating. What assurances can the Secretary of State give them that he will now strengthen the OFT and the FCA by giving them the power to deal with commodity price rigging?

[Mr Davey]

We certainly are strengthening the competition authorities in this country, as I explained earlier. We are looking at a range of issues that have come to light as a result of the LIBOR scandal, the allegations of gas market manipulation and so on. As I explained to the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz), we are working not just nationally, but at a European level and globally to ensure that these commodity markets are fair and not being manipulated. Our record on this stands in stark contrast to the inaction of the last Government.

Fuel Poverty and Energy Efficiency

Debate between Nia Griffith and Ed Davey

Wednesday 16th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davey]

I want to make a bit more progress.

In addition to the winter fuel allowance and cold weather payments, the coalition brought in the warm home discount—a legal obligation on the energy companies that we introduced for direct cuts to the energy bills of the most vulnerable. The Opposition rarely mention this, although to be fair to the right hon. Member for Don Valley she mentioned it today. She will know that so far this winter, more than 1 million low-income pensioners have already received the warm home discount to help keep them warm—and, with them, almost a million other vulnerable households with mandatory rebates worth £288 million this year alone, automatically cutting the bills of the most vulnerable by £130 a year. The Opposition do not normally mention that because it is clear evidence that we are doing everything we can to tackle fuel poverty, despite the financial situation we inherited. Even before cold weather payments can be claimed, a poor pensioner over 80 is guaranteed to receive £430 of help with their energy bill. Under Labour, a vulnerable household was not guaranteed anything, but with the coalition’s warm home discount, they can get £130 off for sure. That is real help.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

How can the Secretary of State say that a pensioner over the age of 80 was not entitled to £400 under Labour, when they were entitled to £400 under Labour’s winter fuel scheme? Will he come clean and tell the House that his Government have cut that to £300, at the same time as cutting the £250 to £200? Can he tell us one week in this winter in which the cold weather payment has been paid to people in the UK?

[Mr Davey]

First, cold weather payments are related to the weather, which the coalition Government do not control, as the right hon. Member for Don Valley was at least good enough to acknowledge. I am afraid that the hon. Lady’s figures are wrong. Under Labour, £300 of winter fuel payments went to all pensioners, but through the warm home discount we guarantee £130 off their bills from the energy companies, so that amounts to £430 off for elderly pensioners. That did not happen under Labour.

Energy Policy

Debate between Nia Griffith and Ed Davey

Thursday 29th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davey]

I do think that shale gas has implications for the whole world, although sometimes some commentators get rather expansive and over-enthusiastic. Shale gas is important. I want it developed in the United Kingdom, but we have to make sure that that is done safely and in a way that protects our environment. I believe that that can be done.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I very much welcome what the Secretary of State said about trying to put British companies at the forefront of the green energy revolution. However, last week Tata Steel announced 600 job losses in Wales and the future of the British steel industry is very dependent on UK demand. What can the Secretary of State do to encourage the development of renewables such as offshore wind turbines, which use thousands of tonnes of steel per turbine? What can he do to promote the use of UK steel in those endeavours?

[Mr Davey]

Our legislative, financial and levy control framework has been warmly welcomed by the offshore wind industry as the biggest boost it has ever seen. I hope that that will reassure the hon. Lady.

The hon. Lady mentioned Tata Steel, which, obviously, is an energy-intensive user. Energy-intensive industries have often been concerned about energy prices and the impact of moving to low-carbon energy. In his autumn statement last year, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor put forward proposals for supporting them and those have been taken forward. The hon. Lady will see in today’s announcement that we are helping energy-intensive industries with respect to contracts for difference in the electricity market reform regime. I think that will be widely welcomed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Nia Griffith and Ed Davey

Thursday 14th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davey]

I assure my hon. Friend that all Departments with responsibility for employment-related legislation are contributing to the review; it is important that they should, if the review is to have a real impact on burdens on business. I will talk to colleagues in other Departments to ensure that they are taking a clear role in it, as I am sure that they will.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Given that the well respected Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development considers that the Government are

“justified in seeking to reform procedures to resolve workplace disputes”,

but suggests that

“the decision to increase the qualifying period for rights against unfair dismissal is questionable”

and could be

“potentially harmful to the long-term performance of the UK economy”,

will the Government stop using a tax on employment rights as a pathetic and unproven substitute for any real growth strategy and drop plans to increase from one to two years the qualifying time for unfair dismissal?

[Mr Davey]

The hon. Lady is right to quote the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development on this issue, because it supports much of the coalition Government’s better regulation agenda in this area. She will know that the unfair dismissal period is out to consultation. A number of responses are very much in favour of the proposal, but she would not expect me to prejudge the consultation today.

Convention on Domestic Workers

Debate between Nia Griffith and Ed Davey

Wednesday 29th June 2011 Westminster Hall

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) on securing the debate. She has a long track record of vigorous campaigning on this and related issues. She has explained the reason for the debate: to call the Government to account for their decision to abstain on the vote a fortnight ago on the International Labour Organisation’s convention on domestic workers. Detailed preparation of the ILO’s landmark convention continued for some time—indeed, since last year—with opportunities for countries to contribute to the work in progress in readiness for the vote on the convention at this year’s ILO international labour conference in Geneva some two weeks ago on 16 June.

Many people were taken aback to discover that although 173 Governments voted for the convention and only one, the Swaziland Government, voted against, the UK was one of eight countries that abstained from voting for the ILO’s convention on domestic workers. It is even more surprising that given the recent media reports about abuses in other countries and inexcusable treatment of domestic workers, the UK has, in abstaining, aligned itself with El Salvador, Malaysia, Panama, Singapore, Thailand, the Czech Republic and Sudan. The USA Government voted for the convention, and with the exception of the Czech Republic all EU countries voted for it. As we know from our previous discussions on the European working time directive, there is a plethora of different opt-out arrangements in many EU countries, but that has not prevented them from signing up.

Only last week, The Times reported on the

“abusive conditions endured by domestic workers...and their powerlessness”.

I believe that the Government have, by remaining silent, condoned that. We have heard horror stories today, and it is now clear that our Government are sending out completely the wrong message to millions of domestic workers around the world. When trying to help and protect them, they are often among some of the hardest to reach, particularly if they have recently arrived from abroad, live in, and have little knowledge of where to find help. Since 1998, following legislation by the then Labour Government, the UK has offered the overseas domestic worker visa, which provides workers with the possibility of independence from their employers. Will the Minister tell the Chamber what plans the Government have for the future of the overseas domestic worker visa, and whether there is any truth in the suggestion that they are looking to scrap it? I remind the Minister that the visa was introduced in 1998 with cross-party support, and that scrapping it would be a backwards step.

In 2008, the Labour Government set up the vulnerable worker enforcement forum, recognising that there was still much to be done to tackle hidden exploitation, and that vulnerable workers need an awareness of their employment rights and to know what to do if they suspect that those rights are being breached. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), then the Minister responsible for employment relations, set up and chaired a fair employment enforcement board. Campaigns were run to raise awareness of employment rights and encourage the reporting of abuses. Some £6 million of extra funding was provided to supply information about workers’ rights. As the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) suggested, that educational role is important and we must get information about workers’ rights to the relevant people. That campaign included outreach work using buses, but domestic workers are particularly difficult to reach, and both the carrot and the stick are important. We need education, but also the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004, the temporary and agency workers directive, and now the domestic workers convention.

The ILO stated that

“this instrument sends a very strong political signal.”

By not backing the convention, the Government also send a strong political message, but of a different order. I am disappointed with the decision, and hope that the Minister will explain what he is doing to ensure that Britain protects its work force, no matter what jobs they do.

Let us look at some of the detail in the convention. Before the meeting in Geneva, the UK Government expressed concerns about three areas of the draft text: first, the articles covering working time; secondly, the potential application of health and safety regulations to private dwellings where domestic workers are employed; and thirdly, those sections of the convention that call for greater regulation of private employment agencies.

Considerable preparation went into the drafting of the convention, and if we look at how it is worded, we see that its articles refer repeatedly to bringing the law concerning domestic workers into line with existing national laws for the rest of the work force. For example, article 10 states:

“Each Member shall take measures towards ensuring…normal hours of work, overtime compensation, periods of daily and weekly rest and paid annual leave,”

which should not be less favourable than those provided for workers generally in accordance with national laws and regulations. In other words, as would be expected for an agreement that is prepared for endorsement by countries across the globe that have different laws and traditions, the convention allows countries to refer back to their own national laws and regulations. Legislation already in place for workers generally can be extended to domestic workers.

[Mr Davey]

Will the hon. Lady explain why the previous Government never extended the working time directive to domestic workers?

[Nia Griffith]

We could have an entire debate on the working time directive, but I am not going to get too distracted by that. I remind the Minister that we had an interesting discussion the other day in a European Committee, and it became apparent that most of the 27 countries in the EU operate various types of opt-out from the working time directive. Our original opt-out has been copied in many different ways, but each country has its own ideas. It is recognised that we need a full and frank discussion about what happens next; the picture across the EU has been a little confused and when we look at our domestic law, we need to ask what is appropriate, including for domestic workers. It is clearly not appropriate for people to work seven days a week, 24 hours day. We need to look at best practice and ensure that we follow that type of model.

[Nia Griffith]

Absolutely, particularly on issues that have taken years of discussion to get to our current position.

Let us return to how the articles in the convention are worded. They state that we should try to make national laws that apply to the general work force apply to domestic workers. That is not easy because domestic workers are often the hardest to reach. Nevertheless, we need to educate people and use the stick as well as the carrot.

The Government have said that they

“do not consider it appropriate or practical to extend criminal, health and safety laws, including inspections, to private households employing domestic workers. It would be difficult, for instance, to hold elderly individuals employing carers to the same standards as large companies.”

Let me remind the Minister of two parts of the convention: article 13 and the relevant recommendation. Article 13 states that each member should take appropriate action,

“with due regard for the specific characteristics of domestic work”.

It is clear that the convention views work undertaken by corporations and that carried out in people’s homes as different, and does not demand that they be treated similarly.

[Mr Davey]

The hon. Lady argues that the convention would not require health and safety legislation to be extended to homes where there are domestic workers. Is that her position? It is certainly not the legal advice we have received.

[Nia Griffith]

It is certainly not my position. Article 13 states that appropriate measures should be taken,

“with due regard for the specific characteristics of domestic work”.

We all know the benefits of health and safety provisions. For example, when students come to do work experience with me I receive a form from the school, asking about fire exits and smoke alarms. Those are sensible and routine questions that every office should be able to answer appropriately. Exactly the same should be the case with domestic workers. We would not want people to work in circumstances that are not safe. We now have higher standards than we used to have—thank goodness; those standards have considerably reduced the number of accidents at work. The convention states that although what is appropriate in a home may be different from what is appropriate in a corporation, that does not mean that protection should not exist.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davey]

Is it therefore the Labour party’s position that the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 should be extended to households where there are domestic workers?

[Nia Griffith]

It is appropriate to endorse what is in the convention. The convention seeks to sort the issue out and find what is suitable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davey]

This is a question of the law. The law says that those workers are entitled. Signing the convention would have made no difference to that. The question that my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire raised was about enforcement. The hon. Lady should understand that. It is about enforcement.

[Nia Griffith]

If the issue is about enforcement and we already have existing legislation, what is the problem with signing up to the convention? Of course we need to improve our enforcement. We need to do that in many areas. However, if the legislation is sufficient, in the Minister’s view, to meet the convention, what is the difficulty?

[Mr Davey]

Of course I will come to that point as it is central to my speech, but let me say for the record that I am undertaking a review of enforcement and compliance rights in the UK to try to improve enforcement in the UK. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire would welcome that.

Domestic workers have the same access as other workers to mechanisms for enforcing their rights. The national minimum wage and statutory sick pay, for example, are enforced by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, and those and other rights can also be enforced by individual workers, if necessary by taking a case to an employment tribunal.

If the domestic worker is an agency worker, they have additional protections under the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003. Those regulations prohibit agencies from charging work-finding fees; require agencies to pay workers for all the hours worked; and provide other protections. They are enforced by my Department’s employment agency standards inspectorate, which responds to complaints and, additionally, carries out a programme of proactive, risk-based inspection.

The pay and work rights helpline, set up by the previous Government, provides an accessible single point of contact for all workers—and, indeed, employers—seeking advice about or wanting to report abuses. It covers basic employment rights, such as the national minimum wage, working hour limits and the special regulations applying to agency workers. A translation service is provided in more than 100 languages for those who need it.

As required by the convention, our child employment regulations are robust. Children under the minimum school leaving age can only do light work, and there are strict rules on when and for how many hours children can work.

For egregious offences at the serious, criminal end of the spectrum, the UK has recently introduced a new offence of holding someone in slavery or servitude or requiring a person to perform forced or compulsory labour. The offence builds on existing statute and will in some circumstances make prosecutions easier.

Signing the convention would have made no difference to the measures that we have in the UK. It would have made no difference to stopping slavery or human trafficking. Why? Because we already, rightly, have some of the strongest laws in this area. There is no question, then, about the Government’s commitment to the principles behind the convention. In almost all respects, our laws already match the requirements set out in the convention.

I come now to the question posed by the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith): if we already comply with almost all of the convention, why did we abstain? The main sticking point for us is the convention’s approach to health and safety in private households. The wording does not provide sufficient flexibility to meet the UK’s long-established approach. Nor does it match our principles of proportionate regulation based on risk. Indeed, because it is inflexible and disproportionate, it could, if implemented, have damaged the interests of vulnerable people. I am sure that the hon. Member for Slough South East would not want that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davey]

I have to tell the hon. Lady that domestic workers are excluded from part I of the Act, which covers health, safety and welfare in connection with work and the control of things such as dangerous substances, and which includes some general duties. There are protections under civil law, and I will come to them in a second, but I am afraid that signing the convention would have meant extending the Act to private households employing domestic workers.

Anyone employing a domestic worker such as a cleaner, a home help, a child minder, a carer for an elderly or disabled person, a gardener, a nanny or an au pair—it is a long list—would have been covered by a range of health and safety regulations, and, in particular, by the 1974 Act. Hon. Members might ask what is wrong with that, but they should consider the implications. The Act would place specific duties on such employers to ensure the health, safety and welfare of domestic workers in so far as that was reasonably practicable, and individual householders would have to familiarise themselves with the law. According to the Act, they would need to consider the information, training, instruction and supervision that their helper needed. They would need to assess the helper’s tasks and any risks from equipment and substances to which the helper might be exposed. The householder would also have to carry out a wide range of risk assessments, which would be different for each home.

The sanctions for non-compliance would be criminal. Householders failing to comply with the law would be subject to criminal penalties providing for unlimited fines and imprisonment for up to two years.

[Nia Griffith]

Does the Minister not think that it would be highly desirable for the workplace to be made safe? Does he really want people to be exposed to all sorts of dangers, particularly when a large number of accidents happen in the home? What is his objection to strengthening the health and safety situation of domestic workers?

[Mr Davey]

I will come to the evidence for not applying the provisions in a second, but if I may, I will continue my remarks, because I want to answer the hon. Lady’s questions.

The Act would place a serious regulatory burden on individuals and create a fear of criminal liabilities if things go wrong. That speaks to the point made by the hon. Member for Slough, who says that there are not many prosecutions of small and medium-sized enterprises and that lots of advice is provided before such things happen. We could, of course, contest that, but what she fails to recognise is the fear of prosecutions, so let us look at the implications of that.

There would be new and significant disincentives to employing domestic workers in a private arrangement. Individuals may cease to employ the additional help they need, which could have serious social consequences. Elderly or disabled individuals, for example, could be deterred by the increased burden they would face from employing carers in their homes, potentially forcing them into residential care.

I assume that hon. Members, like me, visit constituents who are unable to come to their advice surgeries. I have two advice surgeries a week, but I also go to the homes of disabled and elderly people who are not able to come to see me. I have gone into many constituents’ homes, and my understanding of the health and safety legislation is that those homes would have to be significantly improved and changed. I do not believe that the people I visit would welcome inspections of their homes, which would be very intrusive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davey]

Indeed. That is why previous Governments, understandably, did not choose to extend domestic law in the way proposed in the convention; they had the choice, but they did not do that.

[Nia Griffith]

Is the Minister not aware of the many local authorities and private care companies that provide care? Their arrangements could be replicated in the independent care packages.

[Mr Davey]

Of course, those would be covered if we went down this route.

What would be the benefit of extending health and safety laws to individuals and increasing the scope of our criminal regime? Why would we want to give health and safety inspectors a new right to visit millions of homes? Why would we want to pass quite an intrusive law, which the previous Government baulked at? The evidence of the need for such a change is weak, to say the least. Despite what the hon. Member for Llanelli said, households are low risk in health and safety terms. If there is any increased vulnerability for domestic workers, it arises not from health and safety concerns, but from issues such as their treatment by their employers, which is already covered in other legislation.

Of course, we could have voted for the convention and then not ratified it.

Postal Services Bill

Debate between Nia Griffith and Ed Davey

Thursday 9th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davey]

I would like briefly to take hon. Members back to the Bill’s Third Reading in this House, when I marked the passing of the Bill into the capable hands of the other place by saying that the coalition Government’s decision to take on this difficult issue showed them at their strongest and most radical. As we welcome the Bill back, I would like to add to that and say that the Lords amendments before us today also show government at its most open-minded and collaborative, because they represent the constructive and collective efforts of both sides of the other place to improve and strengthen the Bill. The amendments in this group concern part 1 of the Bill and the provisions for the ownership of Royal Mail and the Post Office. I am clear that when it comes to undertaking a sale of shares in Royal Mail, the Government must have the flexibility to negotiate the right deal at the right time.

I know that hon. Members have been anxious to hear more about the next steps in our plans for Royal Mail, so with your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, and in the interests of transparency, I would like to set out briefly the next two crucial steps that need to be taken to secure the future of Royal Mail. As my noble Friend Baroness Wilcox said on Third Reading in the other place, the Government intend to take on Royal Mail’s historical pension deficit with effect from March 2012 as part of the preparations for the sale of the company. I am sure that hon. Members will appreciate what a relief it will be to the 435,000 members of the Royal Mail pension plan to know that their accrued pension rights will be protected sooner rather than later.

The key concern of people up and down the country is that the universal service must be protected. To do that, Royal Mail needs to be on a sustainable commercial footing. The company currently has about £1.7 billion of debt facilities with the Government. We need to restructure the company’s balance sheet in due course, and in order to put Royal Mail on that sustainable commercial footing, we will need to reduce significantly that level of debt. Of course, we will need approval from the European Commission to provide this financial support, and we have already begun informal discussions with the Commission. The Government will submit a formal stated notification in the next few days, and I hope that the process will be completed by March 2012.

We will discuss amendments to part 3 of the Bill, which deal with the new regulatory regime, later on, but of course implementing that regime will be another crucial step towards securing the future of the universal service. I would like to assure hon. Members that the work to establish this is already under way. In particular, Ofcom, the new regulator, will launch a consultation in the autumn with a view to establishing the new regulatory framework in the spring of 2012. I hope that that update is helpful.

I begin my main remarks on this group of amendments by commending Opposition Members on pushing us on whether, given our commitment to transparent government, more could and should be done to offer more information to Parliament. Amendment 1 is a direct response to that. Clause 2 already commits the Government to report to Parliament when a decision to dispose of shares has been made. Amendment 1 adds three new requirements for that report: first, that it must include the objective for the sale; secondly, that it must include details of the expected commercial relationship between Royal Mail and Post Office Ltd following the disposal of shares; and thirdly, that where the proposed disposal would result in shares being placed into the employee share scheme for the first time, the report must include details of that scheme. As I previously said to the Public Bill Committee, I will ensure that shares are placed in the employee share scheme from the time of the very first sale of shares in Royal Mail.

The second of the new requirements—to provide information on the expected commercial relationship between Post Office Ltd and Royal Mail after the sale of shares—will work together with amendment 9 to address a key concern that I know is held by many in the House. After much debate in the House and elsewhere, I can still see no reason why the strong commercial relationship between Post Office Ltd and Royal Mail should weaken after the two companies have been separated. More importantly, the senior management at Royal Mail has been clear that this relationship will continue. That is why the chairman of Royal Mail, Donald Brydon, felt able to say to the Bill Committee that prior to a sale of shares in Royal Mail, the two companies would put in place a new contract for the longest time legally permissible. I have gone on the record—and I am happy to do so again today—as saying that the Government, as sole shareholder, will ensure that the two companies fulfil this commitment.

The negotiation of that contract is, rightly, a commercial matter for the two companies, and not for the Government or this legislation. However, Lords amendment 1 will ensure that, prior to a sale of shares in Royal Mail, Parliament has a snapshot of the expected commercial relationship following the sale, and Lords amendment 9 would make it clear that the annual report on the post office network must include information every year on the postal services provided as part of that relationship. Lords amendment 10 is a technical amendment to clarify the enforcement powers that apply to the annual report on the post office network.

There can be no doubt that the future of this iconic British institution is of enormous interest to Members of this House and in the other place. I believe that a mutual Post Office is a radical and exciting proposal, and one that is supported by all parties. However, I acknowledge that our position—that mutualisation must be a bottom-up process that engages sub-postmasters, customers and management—means that we cannot be as explicit now about what that mutual will look like. Co-operatives UK has now published its report on the options for a mutual, and that report will form the basis for the Government’s full public consultation in due course. Until the conclusion of that process, the Government remain open to all views. We will not dictate the form that mutualisation will take.

To give both Houses more oversight of what an eventual Post Office mutual might look like, we have tabled Lords amendments 2 to 8, which would introduce the affirmative procedure to the powers to mutualise Post Office Ltd. Furthermore, those amendments would ensure that the report on mutualisation provided for under clause 5 must be laid prior to the vote, so that hon. Members have full and detailed information on the mutualisation plans before they debate and vote on them. Let me be clear, however, that the plans, as I have said before, will be developed from the bottom up and in full consultation with all of the Post Office’s major stakeholders.

The last amendment in this group—Lords amendment 11 —addresses an issue that I know is close to the hearts of many hon. Members. When my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary opened the debate on the Bill on Second Reading, he talked of this country being a pioneer of postal services in the 19th century. It is that proud and rich postal history that Lords amendment 11 seeks to protect, by requiring Royal Mail to report annually on its activities in relation to the British postal museum and archive. Having visited the British postal museum and archive, I can say that it provides a wonderful and fascinating record of our postal heritage, and is absolutely deserving of the protection that Lords amendment 11 seeks to provide. I would be quite keen to share with the House the benefit of my visit and some of the lessons that I learnt—for example, that the first post boxes were green, before moving to chocolate brown and then ending up one of the shades of red that we see across our country—but I am sure that you would bring me to order if I did, Madam Deputy Speaker.

In conclusion, the amendments in this group respond to a number of concerns raised in both this House and the other place. They seek to offer more information on the implications of the sale of shares, more parliamentary control over Post Office mutualisation and greater transparency of Royal Mail’s heritage activities. I believe that the objectives that they seek to achieve are truly cross-party objectives, so I would urge the House to agree to them.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

It is indeed our intention to be a constructive Opposition and to welcome amendments that improve the Bill. However, even though we welcome some of the amendments this afternoon—particularly where they reflect to some degree the position that we have taken on aspects of the Bill—we remain totally opposed to the main purpose of the Bill, which is to sell off Royal Mail 100% to private enterprise. That is completely different from our proposal, which was to keep Royal Mail in majority public ownership. Selling off Royal Mail into 100% private ownership means that only through the regulatory regime will the Government and the taxpayers of this country have any influence on the service provided.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davey]

The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) finished where the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) started—in total opposition to the Bill. I have to tell the Opposition that they are ignoring the economic and financial reality of Royal Mail. As a result of the reduction in letter volumes because of technology such as e-mail, the internet, text messaging and social networking, it is losing a huge amount of money. The reduction in letter volumes—its core business—is predicted to fall again and again, but it is not only Royal Mail that is affected. Every postal administration around the world is seeing letter volumes and revenues go down. That means that those administrations are leaching money and something has to be done. The previous Government failed to do anything, although I should pay tribute to Lord Mandelson, who had the decency, on Second Reading in the other place, to recognise that we were on the right track with this Bill. The fact that Labour Front Benchers are unable to recognise that today is testament to Labour’s unwillingness to face up to the reality of the challenges.

[Nia Griffith]

I am sorry to stray away from the amendment, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I think it needs to be put on the record that our Bill, as it stood as Lord Mandelson was taking it through the other place, would clearly have kept Royal Mail in majority public ownership. That was written into the Bill, but it is not in the current Bill. We are talking about a totally different Bill that goes for 100% privatisation. They are two completely different scenarios and the amendments in the Bill arise largely from some of the situations created by that difference.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davey]

I listened carefully to that interesting point in the hon. Gentleman’s speech, and the way in which he eloquently described the situation and referred to the Companies Act 2006 showed that we need to ensure that we design the scheme carefully. We will do so, because we want to deliver on employee share ownership, which is an objective of the Liberal Democrats, the coalition Government and the Bill.

The hon. Member for Llanelli was generally supportive of the proposals on mutualisation, but she spent a lot of time—do tell me if I stray out of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—saying that Government front-office services had not been delivered. We are turning around the decline under which the previous Administration took away more than £300 million of Government services from post offices. Our policy statement and the things that we are delivering show that there is a real future for the front office of government.

[Nia Griffith]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davey]

The hon. Lady is in no position to criticise the Government about this, but I am happy to allow her to intervene—I hope that she will be able to remain in order.

[Nia Griffith]

We are talking about the mutualisation of the Post Office, but that can take place only if it is viable. Will the Minister tell us what new streams of Government business have been given to the Post Office in the past year?

[Mr Davey]

The hon. Lady is right—and we have been clear about this—that the network must be viable before going to mutualisation. The problem is that we inherited a post office network that was so badly managed that we had to turn it round. She asks for specific details, but she knows that several were set out in our November policy statement. She ought to know that the National Federation of SubPostmasters welcomed the start of the pilot scheme offering document verification for pension applications in 106 post offices in the north-east. She should also know that that is only the first of three planned pilots with the Department for Work and Pensions; the other two involve national insurance applications and testing the impact of requiring jobseekers who sign on by post to attend their local post office instead. I would have thought that she would have welcomed such pilots.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nia Griffith]

This is a group of technical amendments. We all want legislation to be as clear, precise and effective as possible. We will therefore support them.

Lords amendments 12 to 14 will form an important part of the Bill. The transfer of the Royal Mail pension plan and the fact that the Government will take responsibility for it are aspects of the Bill with which all parties agree. Any amendments that offer further clarity and security in respect of the handling of workers’ hard-earned pensions are to be welcomed. We had a thorough discussion of the pensions issues in Committee, so I simply reiterate our support for those amendments. I also confirm our support for Lords amendments 24 and 26.

Lords amendments 23 and 27 give effect to recommendations of the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Lords amendment 27 strengthens parliamentary scrutiny by introducing the negative resolution procedure into the Secretary of State’s power to amend the universal service order in a special administration scenario. As it strengthens the opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny, we shall support it.

Lords amendment 28 is purely technical and has been made to reflect the new situation with regard to Wales, following the result of the referendum held on 3 March in which the people of Wales voted yes to additional powers for the Welsh Assembly Government. We campaigned for and welcomed that referendum result, as it will help to streamline procedures, cut out wasteful duplication and ensure that the Assembly has the appropriate legislative powers in the areas for which it already has spending responsibility. We accept the clear need for the amendment and will support it.

[Mr Davey]

I thank the hon. Lady for welcoming the amendments, and I hope that the rest of the House will support them.

Lords amendment 12 agreed to.

Lords amendments 13 and 14 agreed to.

Clause 27

General authorisation to provide postal services

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davey]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) for her general welcome for many of our amendments. I began my remarks by saying that a degree of consensus had emerged in the other place.

The hon. Lady spent most of her time talking about access points and amendment 19. We must be clear about what an access point is. It comes from the directive; the definition of an access point and the requirement to provide them flow from the universal postal service directive, and we then define it in this Bill. It would be wrong for us to state that it could only ever be post offices, and to enshrine that in the Bill, because, for instance, some rural communities might need access points in a form that the post office network is unable to provide. I hope that the hon. Lady recognises that it is therefore important to have some flexibility.

The hon. Lady was concerned about some post offices not being accessible, and gave the example that some of them might be upstairs. In addressing the access points issue, Ofcom will be required to look at the needs of users, and its obligations, under the Communications Act 2003, are much stronger than those of Postcomm, and they include taking account of the needs of disabled people. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Lady will understand that the accessibility requirements have been improved. On access points more generally, the hon. Lady did not give the Government credit for the fact that in the—signed and legally binding—agreement we have reached with Post Office Ltd providing the £1.34 billion, Post Office Ltd has to secure a network of at least 11,500 post offices. That is the clearest and strongest way to ensure that the network is delivered.

The hon. Lady had some concerns about amendment 21, and asked why the Secretary of State would intervene before the five years was up. It is sensible to maintain the Secretary of State’s ability to intervene and direct Ofcom to conduct an unfair burden review. That measure adds some flexibility to the Bill. If all the evidence pointed towards there being a need for an unfair burden review, a process to allow a review to be conducted would clearly be beneficial. We wanted that extra flexibility in the Bill.

[Nia Griffith]

I am not against the idea of Ministers intervening, because it is very important to have that opportunity for a review. I was just wondering whether there were any particular circumstances in which the Secretary of State might be proactive, because of the damage that could be caused if the review was left for five years rather than three. I am all for the Secretary of State having that additional power, but are there any circumstances that would precipitate an instant review?

[Mr Davey]

We need to have flexibility in the legislation to ensure that if the circumstances are so bad for Royal Mail because technology is having a worse effect than we had expected on its letter flows, we can still provide the universal service. That is what this Bill is about. This extra flexibility ensures that if an unforeseen circumstance arises requiring an unfair burden review before the five years is up, that flexibility is in place. I am glad that the hon. Lady welcomes that.

I was grateful for the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt), who acknowledged that these amendments show that the Government have listened. She was concerned that amendment 19 would give the Secretary of State an override. May I assure her that we think it very unlikely that the power would be used? We need to make it clear that the first step is for Ofcom to assess the needs of users, and it will consult the public. We would not expect to use the power, and it is highly unlikely that we would interpret the “interests of the public” as being less important than the “needs of the public”. The words in the amendment should reassure her. The amendment is intended as a broader test to capture elements that the “needs of the public” do not, and that Ofcom is not allowed to consider. I hope that she will be reassured by that.

My hon. Friend also asked about the notification scheme. I assure her that it is designed to enable Ofcom to act to prevent harmful cherry-picking, which would damage the universal service. Again, this is another tightening up of part 3 and the regulations, to ensure that we can deliver the universal service through this Bill.

The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) talked about what happened in his constituency following the bad weather just before Christmas, and asked me whether I talked to Royal Mail about it. Of course I regularly meet the management of Royal Mail, and they are committed to providing an excellent service. I think we all accept that the conditions last winter were exceptional and did create lots of problems. Royal Mail took exceptional measures to try to deal with them, including investing £20 million of extra resources to ensure that deliveries could be maintained. Although the details of Royal Mail’s operations are, of course, a matter for Royal Mail, it is worth pointing out that in areas of Scotland, including his constituency, the private companies had much greater problems in delivering. Royal Mail acted strongly, made the investment and was able to deliver. As the universal service provider, it showed its strength.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Nia Griffith and Ed Davey

Thursday 31st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davey]

The hon. Lady will know that local citizens advice bureaux are funded by local authorities and that the Government have called on local authorities to play their part, as the national Government are playing their part, and to pass on funding to CAB services. Those services are very important and are valued, and we are looking to all local authorities to play their part.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

At a recent meeting I chaired, representatives from individual CABs and other advice centres from across the country gave the loud and clear message that the current uncertainty about the funding of advice services means that advice service centres are closing their doors, expert advice workers are being made redundant and vulnerable people will soon have nowhere to turn for advice. It is all very well the Minister’s blaming the closure of individual CABs on local government decisions, but those decisions are often taken in the light of extreme uncertainty about the future of other funding streams. His Government admits that there is much cause for concern, so why has he not sought an immediate moratorium on all cuts to Government funding streams for advice services for the coming financial year in order to allow time for a longer-term strategy to be developed?

[Mr Davey]

I am very surprised that the hon. Lady did not mention the £27 million that the Government announced last month for face-to-face debt advice. That has been strongly welcomed by citizens advice bureaux across the country, and I would have thought that she would have given us credit.

Promotion of Women in Business

Debate between Nia Griffith and Ed Davey

Tuesday 22nd March 2011 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Edward Davey)]

This has been an excellent debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) on securing it. We heard some powerful speeches, in which Members showed their experience and knowledge of the matter.

One of the key things mentioned by my hon. Friend, which was picked up by others, is that it is not only about equality but about business performance. I shall stress that aspect because I believe that the issue is about growth. We have the Chancellor’s Budget tomorrow. I believe that the Budget and other such measures are aimed at improving corporate performance and thus the performance of the wider economy.

My hon. Friend spoke of the extra benefits and skills that women bring to the boards of our great companies—their attitude to risk, how they manage employees and how they think about customers. She was right to say that the studies cited in Lord Davies of Abersoch’s report and elsewhere are unequivocal on the subject. The evidence is unambiguous that having more women on boards improves corporate performance.

The debate focused on the leadership of women on boards, following Lord Davies’ report. It was good to see such widespread welcome for his report. We also heard about practical support for women and families in the workplace and about supporting women entrepreneurs. I shall try to cover all those aspects. Before doing so, however, I make two further comments on my hon. Friend’s speech.

First, my hon. Friend reminded us of the Prime Minister’s aspiration for a third of Ministers to be female by 2015. Her speech may be an early suggestion that she is heading for promotion. Secondly, she made the important point that men need to listen to women in this debate. One of my favourite books when reading on the subject at university was a book about men and women in conversation called “You just don’t understand me” by Deborah Tannen, a socio-linguist. Listening to each other, particularly across sectors, is most important. We need to understand each other.

It is not only about listening in this debate, as we try to improve business and Government performance on the matter, but about putting that message across in the workplace, with employers and employees listening to each other and having grown-up, adult conversations. Indeed, many of the concerns that lie behind what was said this morning can be addressed in a way that does not require legislation or regulation. My hon. Friend spoke well and to the point.

Many Members spoke of legislation and non-legislation, and it is important that we realise the power of the nudge—the power of the non-legislative approach. That is one reason why I was keen to publish what has been called the employers charter. It sets out what employers can do under current legislation, and gives examples of the sort of conversation that employers are allowed to have with their employees—for example, about maternity leave and workers’ plans. It is important that we change some people’s perceptions about employers. Actually, employers have rights if they behave reasonably, and they can therefore work productively with their employees.

Right-to-request legislation, which was mentioned today, is a sort of nudge. It is about enabling employers and employees to have a conversation about flexible working. I have some concerns about the way in which the previous Government implemented right-to-request legislation. They took a prescriptive approach, and some employers find it rather regulatory and over the top. However, the Government are committed to right-to-request legislation. We will consult on it in due course. As I made clear in a written statement—

[Nia Griffith]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Davey]

In a moment, but first I want to reply to my hon. Friend. The hon. Lady may want to intervene if she does not like my answer.

When we consult on extending the right-to-request legislation to all employees, we will also consult on whether there should be an exemption for micro-businesses. That may be appropriate because conversations are more easily had in small businesses. As my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) said, by and large smaller firms are better at having such conversations than larger companies. We will listen to people when we consult; the hon. Lady may believe too much of what she reads in the papers.

[Nia Griffith]

The question is whether people have the right to request flexible working. As everyone who has spoken today has been very much in favour of the right to request it, and as no one is obliging anybody to grant it, what is the difficulty with insisting that micro-businesses do the same as every other business?

[Mr Davey]

The hon. Lady anticipates our consultation document. I believe that we will get the balance right, and better than the previous Government did; their approach was over-prescriptive. Indeed, that points out one of the differences between the two parties. I regret to say that for the vast majority of this debate, the hon. Lady was the only Labour Member here, but the Labour Government seemed often to think that the only way to secure progress in this area was through regulation and legislation. Sometimes that is needed, but it is often not necessary. For example, the employee engagement taskforce led by David MacLeod and Nita Clarke, which is business-led and is trying to promote best practice in employee engagement, and the employers charter that I mentioned earlier both take a non-legislative approach, and that can have a big impact.

Other questions raised this morning relate to the wider debate, particularly on how to take forward Lord Davies’ report. That report focuses not only on Government but on companies, their chairmen and chief executives and on the head-hunting industry. However, it recommends how the Government should ask quoted companies to report on their performance on this matter. We will be publishing proposals on improving narrative reporting following our consultation—the document was published in July 2010—and that issue will be included. I assure hon. Members that the Government strongly welcome the report, which paves the way to massive improvements in this important matter, on which the previous Government did little.

The hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) asked whether the Government were taking forward measures in the Equality Act 2010, but she may have missed the fact that most of its provisions were brought into force on 1 October 2010. We have concerns about one or two areas, particularly to do with section 78, which provides for mandatory reporting on gender equality, and we are working with business to see whether we can take a voluntary approach, which we think is right. While we engage with business on that matter and try for a voluntary approach, we will not commence, amend or repeal section 78.

Another matter raised by the hon. Lady was that child care is inadequate and often unaffordable. I am proud to say that, in the spending review, the Government did not merely maintain spending on that but increased the opportunity for child care, particularly for the young of deprived families. Our commitment in that area is strong.

That brings me to the debate about maternity leave, paternity leave and parental leave. We will be consulting on that later this year. We already have a lot of legislation on the matter, but it does not work terribly well. It is inflexible, gender-biased and it does not work with the grain of many companies. Our consultation paper will take forward the coalition agreement, and I believe that we can achieve a win-win by making things more flexible for employees and employers. We want them to work better together to ensure that we have more family-friendly workplaces, but that it does not come at a cost for employers.

It has been an excellent debate. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald. I believe that the House could play a critical role. I do not know whether we could go for the Select Committee option put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon, but I am sure that he will want to raise the matter with the Leader of the House. It certainly received support this morning.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Nia Griffith and Ed Davey

Thursday 17th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davey]

As I said in my initial response, funding for local citizens advice bureaux is up to local authorities. The Department for Communities and Local Government has made it clear that the voluntary sector, including citizens advice bureaux, should not be hit disproportionately. I hope the hon. Lady will welcome the fact that the national bodies Citizens Advice and Citizens Advice Scotland have had their funding for next year maintained at current levels. I hope she will also welcome the announcement this weekend by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that we will supply £27 million of funding for face-to-face debt advice next year.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State will be well aware of the devastating impact that the cuts to legal aid will have on citizens advice bureaux across the country, leaving many people without the advice they desperately need. As the Cabinet Minister responsible for the citizens advice service, what action has he taken to ensure a coherent strategy across government to safeguard the full range of funding that the service receives from different Government Departments? At the moment, he seems to be abandoning the service, like the hireling shepherd leading out the injured lamb to be torn apart limb by limb by its predators.

[Mr Davey]

I do not think I have been promoted. However, I can reassure the hon. Lady that we are taking a cross-Government approach to the funding of citizens advice bureaux. That is why the Department has been so strong in making sure that national funding for the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, which supplies technology and IT for all local bureaux, has been maintained, and I would have thought that she welcomed the extra money—£27 million—announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at the weekend, for which she and others have been calling.

Postal Services Bill

Debate between Nia Griffith and Ed Davey

Wednesday 12th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davey]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) for sparking the debate, and particularly for the way in which he introduced it, in his unique style. I thank him for his practical approach to the issue, and for his support for the mutualisation and employee share ownership provisions. I hope I shall be able to reassure him that new clause 2 is not needed, and that our policies for the Post Office will ensure that some of the more scaremongering predictions that we have heard will not come to fruition.

Members who have spoken in support of the new clause have expressed the fear, which has been debated at length in Committee and in other forums, that taking Post Office Ltd out of the Royal Mail Group of companies will put the commercial relationship between Royal Mail and Post Office Ltd at risk, and thence pose a risk to the post office network. I share my hon. Friend’s laudable interest in ensuring that a strong commercial relationship is maintained between Royal Mail and Post Office Ltd. However, the approach taken in this new clause, of legislating a contract of a certain length, is not the way to achieve our shared objective.

In the evidence given to the Public Bill Committee, we heard strong backing for the separation of Royal Mail and Post Office Ltd. These are different businesses, which will benefit from focusing on the different challenges they face. It is worth keeping in mind that postal services account for only about a third of Post Office total revenue, as post offices undertake many other activities. Evidence to the Committee from Richard Hooper—the last Government commissioned him to report on Royal Mail, and this Government asked him to refresh his report—and from Consumer Focus and Postcomm all supported the separation of ownership of the two businesses. I was grateful for the support for this from my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso).

Let me reassure Members, however, that the separation of Post Office Ltd and Royal Mail will not lead to the dangers for the post office network that people have talked about. Operationally, these companies are reliant on one another. Post offices carried out more than 3 billion transactions for Royal Mail in 2009. They will continue to be partners, because there will remain an overwhelming commercial imperative for the two businesses to work together.

Let me expand on that a little further. In evidence to the Bill Committee, the chief executive of Royal Mail, Moya Greene, called the post office network

“the best and strongest network in the country, by any yardstick”––[Official Report, Postal Services Public Bill Committee, 9 November 2010; c. 18, Q42.]

Yesterday, she reaffirmed her commitment to that relationship, saying:

“There is already a very strong and enduring commercial relationship between the Post Office and Royal Mail. It is clearly in the interests of us all that this strong relationship is maintained in the future. We are committed to securing as long an agreement with the Post Office as we are legally able to.”

That confirms what Donald Brydon, the Royal Mail chairman, said in his evidence to the Committee. These are very strong pledges, and both Moya Greene and Donald Brydon make them not for sentimental reasons, but because they are business people and they know this relationship makes commercial sense.

[Nia Griffith]

If this makes such good commercial sense, what is the problem with putting it in the Bill? Royal Mail will still be an attractive proposition to any prospective purchaser.

[Mr Davey]

I will, of course, address that in detail, if the hon. Lady will let me. However, I first want to stress that it is the commercial incentive in the relationship that is so important. The Labour party forgets that commercial rationale is what makes people work together and what makes partnerships successful, not regulation.

I invite Members to consider the counterfactual of why Royal Mail would end its relationship with the post office network. Many of us fought the previous Government’s post office closure programmes precisely because the public value their local post offices so highly and see them as the natural place for high-quality postal services. As I asked on Second Reading, why would Royal Mail walk away from the Post Office, leaving a vacuum which its competitors would willingly fill? That would be commercial nonsense, and it will not do it.

The new clause would put the contract between Royal Mail and Post Office Ltd on a statutory basis, requiring a minimum duration to the contract of 10 years. Let me explain why I am opposed to this suggestion. I do not believe that legislation is appropriate place for the commercially sensitive terms of a relationship between two independent businesses to be settled. I am unaware of any statutory precedent for the Government requiring particular commercial terms between two independent businesses. When we debated this in Committee, I appealed to Committee members to tell me whether they could find such a precedent. None has appeared, and for good reason. These negotiations are best left to the businesses themselves, who know far better than we in this House their customers, the markets they serve, the products and the services they require of one another.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davey]

The hon. Gentleman is a new Member of the House and he might know that there are various protocols on publishing legal advice.

Our policies on post offices will ensure that people will continue to see their local post office as the natural and convenient place to access Royal Mail products, and Royal Mail’s management continues to see the Post Office as its retail partner of choice. It is by attracting customers for all types of services that the Post Office will ensure its future success. With this Government’s funding and support, as laid out in our policy document, which sets out a whole range of ideas for new Government services, we will be able to achieve those objectives.

The new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester is well intentioned and I have always been impressed by how he, the voice of Colchester, campaigns for his constituents, not least for important services such as local post offices. I hope that I have reassured him that his new clause is not needed to support our precious post office network.

[Nia Griffith]

It still is not at all clear what the Minister is giving away. We have absolutely no idea what agreement he is planning and he has given absolutely no indication that he has had any talks with Royal Mail. He is talking about some sort of negotiation that might take place, but he is not telling us why he cannot explain what the legal problem is. We are not the slightest bit convinced, so will he explain exactly what he is doing to secure the Royal Mail business that provides a third of the post office network’s income? No organisation can survive without a third of its income, so what is he doing to ensure that it does not lose it?

[Mr Davey]

The hon. Lady cannot have been listening. What I have said today is absolutely clear: a commitment has been made to the Committee on which she served by the chairman and the chief executive of Royal Mail that they will refresh the IBA or have a new one before the separation. I am saying that the Government, as the shareholder, will make that happen, and she ought to welcome that.

Post Office Network

Debate between Nia Griffith and Ed Davey

Tuesday 2nd November 2010 Westminster Hall

[Mr Davey]

I will disappoint my hon. Friend because to answer him would be getting ahead of the statement that we have to make. It will deal with how we want to spend the £1.34 billion and the detailed business case that Post Office Ltd developed. It was not done on the back of a fag packet, as the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) said. Given the amount of detail in the business plan for spending the £1.34 billion, it would have to be a very large fag packet. In the statement, we will also flesh out our vision for the future of the post office network.

I shall try to deal with some of the points made in the debate. The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk was incredibly critical of the Government. He failed to point out that five post offices in his constituency closed during the previous Government’s closure programmes. If he had done that, we might have listened to him with a little more attention. He and the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont) commented on the need to write into legislation the number of post offices there must be in Great Britain. I looked at the Postal Services Act 2000 and the previous Government’s 2009 Postal Services Bill, to see what their proposals were. Do you know what, Mr Hollobone? The previous Government made no such proposals at all. No sensible Government would tie down private business in knots of legislation, and we should remember that private businesses run 97% of post offices. Frankly, that sort of approach goes back to old socialist regulation and is not how to modernise the post office network and make it more commercially viable.

[Nia Griffith]

The Minister must realise that clause 3 of our Bill said that the organisation would be publicly owned. That is the difference. If Royal Mail is in majority public ownership, a great deal more can be done to control those details than if the entire business were sold into private—possibly foreign—hands. That is the key difference between our proposals and those in the current Postal Services Bill. I hope that the Minister can answer the sub-postmasters and sub-mistresses who are worried about the viability of their businesses because they cannot see an agreement in the legislation.

[Mr Davey]

Again, the hon. Lady shows that her party does not understand business and certainly does not understand the post office network. The previous Government did not write the inter-business agreement between Royal Mail and Post Office Ltd, and nor should they have; it was an agreement between two separate organisations.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Nia Griffith and Ed Davey

Thursday 14th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davey]

My hon. Friend is right that the Royal Mail needs to consider the interests of small and medium enterprises. Indeed, it is part of our approach in the Postal Services Bill to ensure that our new policy framework will do that. I hope that he will be reassured that experience of rationalising mail sorting centres has led to significant improvements to customer service.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Can the Minister explain what guarantees he will give that a privatised Royal Mail service will continue to do business through the Post Office rather than looking for other outlets and perhaps leaving rural post offices in Yorkshire and elsewhere with very little hope of survival?

[Mr Davey]

May I begin by welcoming the hon. Lady to her new role? I look forward to many weeks in Committee considering the Bill. She will know that there is an agreement between Royal Mail and Post Office Ltd, called the inter-business agreement, and it is that agreement—not a Government guarantee—that decides that relationship. We expect and believe that that inter-business agreement will continue.