Draft Intellectual Property (Exhaustion of Rights) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Monday 21st January 2019 General Committees

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon. We now know what the £171,000 an hour is being spent on. I wonder how much the Committee will contribute towards that sum and whether we will get as far as an hour’s worth.

The draft regulations are yet another example of a no-deal preparation SI, which the Prime Minister could rule out at any time she wanted by announcing that she was taking no deal off the table. [Interruption.] I am being interrupted from a sedentary position, Mrs Moon. How strange.

The Prime Minister could have ruled out no deal in her statement earlier. I just checked what she said, and yet again she has chosen not to. It seems that the Chancellor and the Business Secretary are keen on doing so, and why on earth the Prime Minister cannot is beyond me. Frankly, if she wants to work across the parties, that is exactly what she will do, and she will find a majority in this Parliament for an alternative to no deal, if and when she eventually does that. [Interruption.] More muttering from a sedentary position. How strange, again.

The SI raises a number of issues and challenges. It raises the prospect of the import of cheap products that would undercut domestic producers and drive a coach and horses through our consumer arrangements in the event of no deal. Reasons abound for ruling out no deal, and that is one of them. I shall go through some of the points that were debated at great length in the House of Lords.

The draft regulations say that in the event of no deal, existing arrangements will continue. Those arrangements are at present in the area of EU trade where IP protection within the EU has ended or been exhausted. The Minister set that out fairly, I thought. Products from anywhere in the EU can be traded across the EU without restriction once IP protection has ended.

That so-called regional exhaustion applies within the EU but not to products from outside. EU case law largely uses an example from 1999 relating to an Austrian company called Silhouette, which produced sunglasses. Older designs from the company were sold to Bulgaria, which at the time was outside the EU. Another Austrian company chose to import those older models back into Austria and sell them at substantially lower prices than the current models were being sold for.

After lengthy legal consideration, the European Court decided that that contravened EU regulations. That is the case law currently relied on for this country’s arrangements, as it is in the other EU27 and EEA member countries across the continent of Europe. Significant concerns have been raised in the sector, and by the Alliance for Intellectual Property, about the potential for legal challenge under the draft regulations, and about whether EU case law will continue to be relied on once we have left the EU. Those concerns relate to leaving with or without a deal. However, the draft regulations are about leaving with no deal.

The potential for such legal challenges raises concerns about the continuation of arrangements. A competitor could try to import a product and say that EU case law no longer applies. I know that the Government’s intention is that the situation should not cause a problem. However, legal advice has been given to the sector that such legal action could last several years and hold up a final decision. There is nothing in the SI to state whether EU case law will continue to apply to maintain the arrangements that the Minister said he wants in the event of no deal.

The question is what would happen in the situation in question. The problem would be that competitors could challenge each other, imports could be held up, and all sorts of problems and delays could arise, leading to significant concern and difficulty for businesses and consumers in this country. In the House of Lords debate, Lord Stevenson described the draft regulations as creating a “dripping roast” for lawyers. Having looked at that debate and at the representations I have been given, I am afraid I have to agree. The draft regulations are very good news for lawyers, but not much use for businesses, consumers or workers.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I debated some of these issues at length a number of years ago, when the Intellectual Property Act 2014 was going through the House and during debates on some of the subsequent secondary legislation. This is an interesting issue and my hon. Friend makes some important points. Does he agree that there is great concern out there, particularly among those in smaller creative sectors such as musicians, self-employed people and people in the video games industry, about the chaos that will be created by the kind of Brexit the Government are pursuing and the risk that poses to their businesses?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

Does the Minister appreciate that there are genuine concerns, particularly among self-employed musicians—I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—and small creative companies and games companies? They are deeply concerned not only about the impact of Brexit, but about what this chaos will cost them, whether or not there is a deal, in getting such legal advice, which those in what are often low-pay industries could do without.

[Chris Skidmore]

Passing this SI today will provide the maximum possible certainty by creating the national exhaustion regime, allowing companies and creators to have that security by keeping the status quo. That is what this SI is about. We are not having a wider debate about Brexit today; this is about ensuring that, when it comes to changing this technical apparatus in law, the regime continues as it has done previously. The SI simply ensures that we can continue to tick on as we have done in the past. Its implementation is essential to ensuring that the current arrangements continue. Failing to pass this legislation before we exit would leave a period of legal uncertainty, during which businesses could incur significant litigation risks. The SI maintains arrangements that continue to support the movement of goods to the UK. For example, this could help with NHS resilience in the supply of medicines at a cheaper cost.

The hon. Member for Sefton Central also talked about the potential consequences of an international exhaustion regime. I have already stated that this is about extending the legal framework to ensure that we protect the current regional exhaustion regime. When it comes to any further alternatives, the legal and economic arguments for various options are complex, which is why the Government are conducting research on the best exhaustion regime for the UK. Were there to be a change, the Government would introduce it only following evidence gathering and analysis, alongside engagement with a wide cross-section of stakeholders. The Government are conducting a feasibility study that will look into the levels of parallel trade between the UK and the EU. That study is ongoing and the evidence from the report will form part of the next steps in the Government’s decision-making process. I believe it will be published by Ernst and Young in 2019. Obviously, the response to the report and any further policy measures will take time. There is no compelling reason to rush to an alternative system until we have seen the evidence and listened to businesses and consumers.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned public consultation. Since the referendum result, the Intellectual Property Office has engaged with businesses in several sectors about the implications of exit. I visited the IPO’s offices in Newport on Friday and found an excellent organisation whose workforce have high morale and are determined to deliver maximum possible certainty as we approach the EU withdrawal day of 29 March. I have seen the charts and I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the IPO is doing all it can to engage with stakeholders.

The usual wide engagement with businesses and individuals was not possible on a draft no-deal instrument when the Government were in the middle of sensitive negotiations on the withdrawal agreement. Public consultation on no deal would also have risked prejudicing the ongoing discussion with the EU about our future membership. However, as I said, the IPO engaged with stakeholders across a wide range of sectors, including rights holders. That was consistent with the approach to no-deal legislation across Government, as I mentioned last week in our previous discussion on statutory instruments.

Leaving the EU: Airbus Risk Assessment

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Monday 25th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend is right in alluding to the fact that an aeroplane, which is what we are talking about, is a combination of products from different countries. They need to come together—this is inherently international—so to have standards for wings that are different from standards for engines and parts of the fuselage would clearly be incompatible with having a plane that flies. There is good sense in having an agreement that brings coherence to what is a single product manufactured in different parts of Europe.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I draw the House’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

My constituents, many of whom work at Airbus plants in Newport or across the Severn bridge in north Bristol in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), also face devastation from the prospects of a hard Brexit. Will the Secretary of State therefore join me in condemning the leader of the Welsh Conservatives for his comments describing Airbus’s remarks as “hyperbole”, “threats” and “exaggerating”, and agree with his ministerial colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb), who has described senior Cabinet Ministers’ comments as “both unworthy and inflammatory”?

[Greg Clark]

I have said very clearly, as I hope the hon. Gentleman would acknowledge, that it is entirely reasonable for any firm that employs people and pays taxes in this country to contribute its expertise and experience to the discussions that we are having.

Sainsbury and Asda Merger

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Monday 30th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffiths]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Huge strides forward were made in getting these jobs out of London and further north, and I know he has done a very good job in representing employees’ views. I can reassure him that their voices will be heard. He should convene a meeting, talk to the workforce and encourage them to contribute to the CMA inquiry.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I draw the House’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a member of the GMB. I met members of the GMB in Asda in my constituency last year and other retail workers represented by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and Unite. Does the Minister understand the concerns in Cardiff, given the loss of almost 1,000 jobs in the last year at Tesco House in Cardiff, which affected many of my own constituents, and given that his Government’s own analysis on Brexit shows it will hit the retail and food and drinks sectors extremely hard in all the scenarios?

[Andrew Griffiths]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s points, which is why one of the first things I did after being made Minister was to pick up the phone to the union representatives he talks about. We want to make sure that employees’ voices are heard and that there is proper engagement over the merger. It is clear, though, that in no way is this a response to Brexit. These are businesses based in the UK and competing in the UK, and the business will continue to be listed on the London stock exchange post the merger. I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s concerns, which he raises on behalf of his constituents, but perhaps we should stop playing politics with Brexit.

Companies House and Transgender Persons

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Monday 20th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Nicky Morgan]

I thank my hon. Friend very much for that. I am going on to show that we are dealing with a simple loophole, which is completely unintended, and closing it would be another step that Government and Ministers could take to show a continued commitment to the transgender equality plan. Some of these very simple steps can make a great deal of difference to people, both those who are watching tonight and those who find out about this debate later.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I commend the right hon. Lady for securing this Adjournment debate. I met one of my local trans support groups in Cardiff and they shared with me many of their concerns. Steps such as the one we are discussing can go a long way in reducing stigma. Does she agree that there have been some unpleasant headlines in certain media outlets in recent weeks and that many trans people feel very stigmatised because of some of the ill-educated and ill-informed debate that goes on in the media?

[Nicky Morgan]

I agree very much with what the hon. Gentleman says, and I know that he is a great campaigner on these issues. As he says, and as we all know, prejudice often comes from fear, and we need to talk about these issues. During my time as Equalities Minister, I met trans young people and their families, some of whom struggled to accept what was happening to their families, but with the right support a huge amount of difference was made. All of us can benefit, not just on this issue, but on many others facing us a country at the moment, from standing back, listening to other points of view, trying to understand, even though that is not always easy, and not rushing to judgment.

As I was saying, the Government have committed to consulting on the Gender Recognition Act 2004, and I welcome the words of Ruth Hunt, the chief executive of Stonewall, who said:

“We need a simple process which isn’t medicalised, intrusive or demeaning.”

These are complex issues here that do challenge many people, but let us have a properly informed debate about them, rather than somehow thinking it is best not to discuss these difficult issues.

I would like to take this opportunity to again raise another aspect of the Gender Recognition Act that needs to be reviewed. In September last year, I received a letter from Alex, who wrote:

“I am the sole director of a company I set up some years back to manage a small property portfolio.. .When I changed my name and title the process to inform Companies House was actually very easy and my name was updated quickly...I noticed afterwards however, that this change of name and title was recorded in the company filings that are freely available for public inspection on the Companies House website. The document in question is a...Change of Particulars for Director form and clearly states my original name and title and subsequently my new name and title. This very obviously discloses my change of gender to anyone who happens to look at the filing history of my company, publicly outing me without my consent. The main issue I take with this is that of safety. In future there will be many people I meet and interact with who will have no idea of my transgender status because I simply will not tell them. If someone later finds out, this could potentially lead to violence, which is a reality that you are already aware the trans community faces.”

The potential for inadvertent disclosure comes about because of a conflict between section 22(4)(j) of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and section 1087(1)(k) of the Companies Act 2006. The Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James), who is on the Treasury Bench this evening, will be aware that I wrote to her about this last year and that, in her response to me dated November 2016, she made it clear that the companies registrar must make available to the public all information held on the public register unless he is specifically forbidden to do so by section 1087 of the Companies Act.

Section 22 of the Gender Recognition Act generally prohibits the publication of protected information held on a transgender person. However, section 22(4) details the circumstances under which it is not an offence to disclose protected information, which are if

“the disclosure is in accordance with any provision of, or made by virtue of, an enactment other than this section.”

The Minister’s letter to me stated:

“The Government is satisfied that this applies to the disclosure of a director’s former name as this is required to be placed on the public record by enactments in the Companies Act. In conclusion the data is not considered to be material excluded from public inspection by the Gender Recognition Act for the purposes of section 1087 of the Companies Act.”

I do not disagree with this interpretation, but, as I have said, this is an unintended loophole that needs to be closed, which is why, before the general election, I introduced the Companies Documentation (Transgender Persons) Bill to the House. When I introduced that Bill, I referenced another part of Alex’s letter to me, which said:

“In 2004 the GRA came in to place with the clear main goal of protecting people who were at risk of being vulnerable, and it was a world-leading piece of legislation which frankly I’m proud to say came out of the UK. What is happening now with Companies House is an entirely accidental and unfortunate flaw in the way that the GRA 2004 and CA 2006 interact with each other. This flaw is entirely against the spirit of the GRA 2004, and I think that anyone would be hard pushed to argue against that...I’m currently able to protect myself when it comes to my credit profile, my tax profile at HMRC, the FCA register, Government Gateway. I just personally think it is the right thing to do to force Companies House to be held to the same standard.”

My Bill proposed that that loophole be closed by amending the 2004 Act in a way that would allow transgender persons to apply to Companies House to withhold from public inspection information about a director’s former name, and for that information to be treated as protected information under section 22 of the 2004 Act. The case for this small legislative change is compelling, as such a disclosure can have a profound effect on transgender people, particularly as transition and history are very personal and should be something that a person chooses to share, rather than being forced to do so by someone else. The legal mechanism for people to change their gender is also not a decision that anyone enters into lightly, and nor does it happen quickly. In my experience, once that decision is made, transgender people want to be able to move on with their lives, to be treated with respect, and to live without the fear of being inadvertently outed or subject to violence.

I am afraid to say that, as we have heard, violence and discrimination do still occur. Since my previous speech to the House, the Home Office has published updated statistics that show that in England and Wales in 2016-17, there were 1,248 transgender hate crimes, up from 858 in 2015-16. That is an increase of more than 45%, which is higher than the previous yearly increase of 41%. Living in fear because of who you are is unacceptable in the modern United Kingdom and no one should have to live in fear of violence because of official documents that they have filed in compliance with a particular Act of Parliament.

I again thank those who have contacted me to share their views in spite of such fear, including Alex. I remind the House that, in the course of preparing for the introduction of my Bill, I was contacted by other transgender persons, one of whom said to me:

“My current position is that I am unable to start my business without running the very real risk of outing myself as a transgender woman. Presently I want to start a business to provide technology and web development services. However, as I cannot yet transition, I am in the unfortunate position where if I started a business now and then transitioned this information would be publicly available.”

Another contact, an accountant, told me that the advice that they were given was to resign as an existing director and register a new director’s appointment in the new name, although clearly details such as their date of birth would be the same. Alternatively, they were told they could close the company down, have it struck off and then set up a new company, with all the administrative expenses entailed in that course of action.

I also received the following message:

“I used to do IT contracting and did so via a limited company. I changed my name and title by deed poll in 2012 and also need to change my details at Companies House as a director of my company. I’ve now had gender reassignment surgery and will be applying for my gender recognition certificate as soon as I receive the necessary report from the Gender Identity Clinic. Whilst this will give me a lot of protection in law it will still be possible for people to find out my dead name by interrogating the records of my company at Companies House which could possibly put me at risk if someone found out those details for malicious purposes.”

Altering the Gender Recognition Act would be a simple change to make, yet it would mean a great deal to the many transgender people who suffer this problem in silence. The Government have an opportunity to close this inadvertent loophole and to show that they are committed to protecting the transgender community and to allowing transgender people to choose what, if any, information about their transition is publicly available and in what way such information is disclosed. I should add that I very much hope that were this option to be taken up, there would be a way for Companies House to make sure that such information is available to the lawful authorities, such as the police or others investigating a crime—because, of course, they might need to access some of those details—after an appropriate request and their having passed a suitable hurdle, including on why they need the evidence. I hope that, given the Government’s commitment to transgender equality, the Minister will consider this issue and the views of those who have contacted me as part of the upcoming review of the Gender Recognition Act. I look forward to hearing her response.

Tesco House, Cardiff: Job Losses

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Wednesday 19th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Anna McMorrin]

Yes. Some staff members who were not there that day only actually found out that they had lost their jobs through social media. There also seems to have been no formal means of contacting them or managing their concerns.

Following the announcement, I met Tesco executives to press them on their reasons for the job losses and why jobs in Dundee have seemingly been prioritised over jobs in Cardiff. We were told that there is more space in Dundee and that the company had already taken the decision to have one site where customer relations staff would be based. They were unable to provide any reason why they had not entered into discussions with either the UK Government or the Welsh Government.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. I, too, have constituents who have been affected by this absolutely absurd decision. Does she agree that it is completely bizarre for Tesco to not provide those reasons, particularly when Cardiff has gained a reputation as an excellent place for customer care centres? Many different companies choose Cardiff because of the excellent skilled workforce there.

[Anna McMorrin]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I think that these job losses are the latest in a string of cuts implemented as part of the so-called turnaround plan by Dave Lewis, the group chief executive, who joined Tesco in autumn 2015.

--- Later in debate ---

[Margot James]

I do not think I would go as far as to condemn that, because I believe Tesco made every effort to inform people on a one-to-one basis. Some people were away. [Interruption.] If I am wrong about that, I apologise, but the information I have had is that Tesco did make every effort. Some people were away; it did contact them. It is appalling that some people found out about this on social media—and the situation in the Chamber lighting-wise has slightly thrown me off.

I know that the fact that retail is highly competitive and buoyant will be of little comfort to Tesco workers at the Cardiff customer engagement centre who are facing an uncertain future. Every collective redundancy situation involves individuals, and their needs need to be managed carefully. It is vital that individual workers receive the information and support that they need, as and when they need it. This Government and the Assembly in Wales stand ready to provide every possible support to the hon. Lady’s constituents and those of other Members representing the Cardiff area. I wish them all the very best in their search for new employment if the redundancies go ahead.

[Stephen Doughty]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise for the unusual nature of this point of order, just before the question is put. Have you or Mr Speaker had notice of any statements, written or otherwise, to be made tomorrow by the Secretary of State for Transport relating to crucial decisions in Wales on St Mellons parkway station in my constituency and to the worrying rumours about rail electrification in south Wales?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I am not aware of any notification of statements, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows that if he has not heard anything by tomorrow there will be an opportunity to raise the issue, perhaps during business questions.

Question put and agreed to.

Cavity Wall Insulation: Wales

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Wednesday 19th April 2017 Westminster Hall

[Hywel Williams]

That is certainly the case. It is an elementary step. One just needs to look at the map of the UK. The west of Wales, the south-west of England, the north-west of England and Scotland are all coloured a deep blue, and areas such as East Anglia are coloured white. A five-year-old could look at that map and see where the rain was going to be and where there might be problems. Unfortunately, many people were not aware of those maps or of this issue.

The consumer redress process so far has been unsatisfactory. Vulnerable people have been left in damp and damaged homes. The industry guarantee scheme has failed many victims and has shortcomings, including sometimes—I am sorry to say this—a hostile attitude to victims. There is an opportunity for the Government to put things right, and my demand—I put it as strongly as that—today is for the Minister to take decisive action to protect consumers from further bad practice, identify all victims and fully compensate all those who have been affected by what is clearly a Government-backed scheme.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Gentleman’s comments. I, too, have constituents who have been terribly affected. In one case, an elderly couple had cavity wall insulation installed 10 years ago by Domestic and General, which subsequently went into liquidation, and they have had the shambolic experience of dealing with the Cavity Insulation Guarantee Agency—particularly its head of customer service—and all sorts of other agencies. It has just become one shambles after another, and they have not had redress.

[Hywel Williams]

I am afraid that the picture the hon. Gentleman paints is all too common, especially in Wales but also in parts of the north-west of England. For example, people from Blackpool have travelled all the way to Bangor and Caernarfon to see me to explain the difficulties that they have had in areas where cavity wall insulation has been installed without explanation and there is wind-driven rain, which is the danger.

I welcome the long-awaited report of the Bonfield review entitled “Each Home Counts”, which was released on 16 December last year; some hon. Members may have seen it. A review was first considered by the then Under-Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, the right hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd), on 3 February 2015, during the second debate we had on the issue. I spoke in that debate and expressed my concern about the attitude towards victims of cavity wall insulation of some in the insulation industry and the official bodies that allowed this to happen.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Tuesday 31st January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

I dare to suggest that the hon. Gentleman is misinformed. It is not quite clear what he thinks of as the lagoons in the scheme he describes, but Hinkley Point will be a bigger generator than, certainly, the first round of lagoons, as well as being a higher load and more reliable.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

9. What progress his Department is making on implementing the recommendations of the Hendry review on tidal energy.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Jesse Norman)]

The issues considered by the Hendry review are complex, and the Government will be demanding a period of time to assess the recommendations and determine what decision is in the best interests of UK energy consumers. I have already said that we will not be dragging our heels on this, and we will not do so.

[Stephen Doughty]

There is huge potential for tidal energy not only in the Swansea scheme but along the south Wales coast and the Severn estuary and along the north Wales coast. However, I am hearing worrying things about the Department dragging its heels on this. Will the Minister assure me that there will be strong ministerial leadership to take the recommendations forward and to get on with the Swansea scheme and others?

[Jesse Norman]

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman would say that, given that it was the Department’s expectation that the report might be published before Christmas and that it was in fact published only two or three weeks ago. There is no suggestion that the Department is dragging its heels, and nor will we do so, but we will, in the public interest, give the report proper, thorough consideration on value-for-money and other grounds.

Draft Trade Union Act 2016 (Political Funds) (Transition Period) Regulations 2017

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Wednesday 25th January 2017 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Margot James)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Trade Union Act 2016 (Political Funds) (Transition Period) Regulations 2017.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. During the passage of the Trade Union Act 2016, the House debated at length the principle that union members should make an active choice to contribute to a trade union’s political fund. The other place established the Select Committee on Trade Union Political Funds and Political Party Funding, under the chairmanship of Lord Burns. I would like to start by thanking Lord Burns and all the peers who sat on that cross-party Committee for their work.

I want first to remind hon. Members why the Act’s reforms to political funds are important. Under current legislation, a union member automatically contributes to a union’s political fund as part of their union subscription, unless they notify the union that they do not wish to do so. We have debated at length the principle of those rights of union members. The Select Committee also assessed the extent to which unions were, in practice, transparent to their members about the existing choice to opt out of contributing to their union’s political fund.

The Select Committee concluded that there is significant variation in how different unions convey opt-out information to their members. The Government’s analysis of online union subscription forms—the point at which an individual makes their first financial commitment to the union—found that nearly half of unions that have a political fund make no mention of its existence.

The provisions in sections 11 and 12 of the Act meet our manifesto aim to provide a transparent, active choice for union members by allowing new members joining a union to opt into making payments to a political fund. As required by the Act, we consulted the TUC, 24 unions with political funds and the certification officer to seek their views on the length of the transition period.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

First, I declare my proud membership of the GMB. I worked on the Trade Union Act in its early stages in Committee and on Second Reading, along with other Opposition Members. The Minister mentioned the consultation period and the TUC. Of course, the TUC and many individual unions have expressed concerns about the length of the transition period. Though willing to try to comply with the legislation, they have raised very reasonable concerns about the timeframe. Why has that not been taken into account?

--- Later in debate ---

[Margot James]

The hon. Gentleman quibbles about weeks and months. We are approaching the end of January and the measure will not come into force until 1 March, from which point the unions will have 12 months in which to comply.

[Stephen Doughty]

The Minister is being generous in giving way. Unfortunately, she has mischaracterised what many unions have done with regard to planning. The Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers will hold its annual conference on the last Sunday in April. It booked the venue many years in advance and informed the delegates, and they have had to book time off work. USDAW and other unions want to agree the changes in order to comply with the legislation, but they will not be able to do so because the Minister is not willing to move the deadline by a few months. That is absurd.

[Margot James]

I am sorry about the situation that the hon. Gentleman describes at USDAW. Perhaps it could make some progress at the end of April, if that is when its conference will take place. If it is not scheduled to take place until next April, I concede that that is a disadvantage for USDAW. It may have to take other measures, which I have outlined, to consult its members on the necessary rule changes.

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee noted that the Government had not published a summary of responses to their consultation with unions and the certification officer on the length of the transition period covered by the regulations. I apologise that we were unable to publish a summary of responses when the regulations were laid. We accept that we should have done so. The Committee advised us that it is best practice to publish a summary of consultation responses and we have now done so on gov.uk. The Government believe that the regulations are proportionate and strike the correct balance between the interests of unions and members of the public.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gill Furniss]

Thank you, Mr Stringer. When the Bill went to the other place, the Government had initially proposed a transition period of 12 weeks, but the House of Lords Select Committee on Trade Union Political Funds and Party Political Funding recommended a minimum of 12 months.

On 16 March, the first day of the Bill’s Report stage in the other place, the Government suffered several defeats, including on the transition period. By a majority of 148, the other House voted for an amendment restricting the new political fund opt-in to new members; extending the transition period from 12 weeks to 12 months; removing the need to renew opt-ins every five years; and allowing unions to use methods other than postal for the purposes of opting in.

During the Bill’s passage through the other House, clause 11 was added and ensured that, before beginning the transition period, the Secretary of State must consult the certification officer and all trade unions that have a political fund. The Government claim that they have satisfied that clause, with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy conducting an informal consultation with trade unions and the certification officer. It seems, however, that that lightweight bit of research was more focused on coming up with a transition cost than actually listening to trade union concerns; the Government heard concerns and objections, but then did exactly what they wanted to do in the first place.

It seems to me that a consultation process implies actually taking into account the concerns and objections that stakeholders might have. The proposed 12-month transition period is completely inadequate and fails to take into account the complexity involved in making the required changes. Many of my hon. Friends have made that point very well today, and I will outline some of the reasons why that period is insufficient. For example, I note as others have that retailers were granted two years to prepare for new charges on plastic bags, which was far less complicated than what is envisaged under the regulations.

Unions are democratic organisations, with established procedures and hierarchies designed to support their democratic operation. To change the rules is a lengthy process; branches must be consulted before a final change can be approved at a conference.

It has been suggested that rule changes could be agreed through a majority vote at a meeting of a union’s executive committee, under section 92 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. However, the proposed process is not consistent with most union rules or practices. The Government have previously argued that the Trade Union Act was designed to increase transparency and to encourage participation in union democracy. Under the terms of this statutory instrument, unions will be forced to act in a way that could damage or undermine their democratic structures in order to comply with the Act. That position is not exactly consistent.

If the Government were actually concerned about increasing democratic engagement by union members, they would not have delayed the implementation of electronic balloting—a proposal on which they were defeated in the other place and which was included in the Act through a cross-party amendment.

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend is making a strong point. During the evidence sessions on the Trade Union Bill we heard many times from Conservative Members about alleged undemocratic structures operating in unions and decisions being taken by small groups of people. Does she agree that it is absurd that in reality the Government are asking us to override those long-established democratic structures of unions?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens]

The hon. Gentleman is more than welcome to read my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and he will then have that information. All hon. Members of this House can see by looking at my entry what that interest means and how much it is worth.

[Stephen Doughty]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the reasons why we are all pleased to declare our membership of a trade union is that we are proud of it and proud of our association with the trade union movement? We are entirely transparent regarding donations and other matters. If the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham wants to go down that route, I am sure we would be interested to hear about all the donations and declarations of interest of Government Members, including him.

[Chris Stephens]

It comes as no surprise to me when we are discussing a piece of legislation that has an impact on trade unions that Members declare their membership of a trade union, and that they are all proud to do that. I notice that not one Government Member has yet declared that they are a member of a trade union, which I think is quite interesting.

I have a sense of déjà vu as I stand in this room, as I served on the Trade Union Bill Committee with Conservative Members including the hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire, who I see in his usual place, and the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth. The then Minister for Skills, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), who I hope is recovering well, said that the purpose of this part of the Bill was not to punish trade unions in terms of costs, nor was it designed to trip people up. Unfortunately, that is exactly what the proposal before us is designed to do. The Government appear to be ignoring the quite reasonable submissions by trade unions regarding the practical difficulties, some of which have been mentioned. I am aware that Unison traditionally has its annual conference by June. It is not really good enough to say that trade unions should be preparing when they submitted to a Government period on how to implement the measures. The answer on that point is not good enough.

This is not just a Labour party issue. It is about political funds, which have funded some great campaigning work on equal pay, health and safety, anti-racism and anti-austerity, as the hon. Member for City of Chester pointed out.

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Gentleman is listing the important types of campaign that have been funded. We were talking earlier about the campaign by USDAW—the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers—against violence against shop workers, which I have been proud to promote in shops in my constituency. Does he agree that such campaigns are vital?

[Chris Stephens]

They are vital. The political funds help trade unions to raise public awareness, and stopping violence against shop workers is an important issue. That does not just affect trade unions; there is a wider society awareness role for that sort of campaign, which is welcome.

Another practical question is: why are we discussing this now, when the check-off arrangement statutory instrument has still to come before us? The two are related. Trade union branches will have to discuss with employers how to facilitate the changes to subscription rates that this legislation will require. It seems to me rather foolish of the Government to introduce the SI before us today but not the associated check-off arrangements SI. It seems to me that the date of 1 March 2018 has been set deliberately either to trip up the trade unions, or to burden them with additional costs.

The Government are all for deregulation in every other part of the economy, but not in relation to the trade union and labour movement. Mr Stringer, I too will seek to divide the Committee. I urge all hon. Members to vote against the statutory instrument.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I joked with the hon. Member for Glasgow South West that this has been almost like getting the band back together, to quote “The Blues Brothers”. We have been joined, thankfully, by hon. Friends who have made excellent contributions, including of course the shadow Minister, who has clearly set out the unreasonableness of the statutory instrument and some of the wider issues around it. Unfortunately, as has been said, it reflects the pattern of the Government’s shabby behaviour to not only trade unions but civil society and alternative voices more generally. We saw what the Government attempted to do during the progress of the gagging Act, and their attempt to shut down the arguments of charities and lobbying organisations. We have seen attempts to reduce judicial reviews and many attempts to diminish the reasonable work of trade unions, which act as a voice for many millions of working people up and down the country.

This is not just about unions that have a close relationship with the Labour party. This is about the TUC expressing serious concerns about this statutory instrument and about the Trade Union Act more generally, yet those very reasonable concerns have been ignored, as have the voices of devolved Administrations. I am pleased that the Welsh Labour Government have introduced the Trade Union (Wales) Bill to repeal the parts of the Trade Union Act that they believe go far too far and cross into the devolution settlement and their rights as a devolved Administration. I am proud that we have a Government in Wales who are standing up for trade unions and working people.

As I have said, there is a pattern of behaviour here. Yesterday, we saw an attempt by Conservative Members to restrict the rights of workers massively. The attempt was defeated, but the measure was supported by many Government Members, including some who have in the past burnished their alleged working-class credentials. I am very pleased that the measure was defeated.

We can talk about the politics, and the ideological games that the Government are playing—that would underline the intent behind this statutory instrument and other legislation that they have introduced—but in the end, this comes down to reasonableness. The question is whether it is reasonable for trade unions to comply with a law that has been passed, whether I agree with that law or not—and it is very clear that I do not. We were told all the way through the passage of the Trade Union Bill and in many other discussions around it that it was all about listening and improving democracy and transparency, yet the Government have made attempts to ignore the democratic structures in trade unions and frustrate their operation.

[Chris Stephens]

The hon. Gentleman was on the Trade Union Bill Committee and would have heard the then Minister for Skills, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford, saying that the measures were not about passing on additional costs to trade unions. Does he think that claim is fulfilled in this statutory instrument?

[Stephen Doughty]

No, I do not. Indeed, I fear that costs are a consequence of many other parts of the legislation. Fines can be introduced for non-compliance, and there are many other restrictions. Many of the unions we have talked about, particularly USDAW, have been clear that they are trying to comply with the legislation within a reasonable time, yet the Government are not listening to their very reasonable concerns. The unions are suggesting that this be delayed not by years or decades, but by months, given their pre-existing and very reasonable democratic structures and processes.

I go back to the TUC’s key concerns about this statutory instrument. It has been clear that it believes that the proposed 12-month transition period is inadequate and fails to take into account the complexity involved. As I have said, a financial penalty of up to £20,000 can be imposed by a certification officer.

On revising the rulebooks, the changes need to be agreed through union democratic structures—a lengthy process that differs greatly from union to union. They need to consult branches, as has been mentioned several times, and there are rule-making conferences where union democracy can be conducted, with full transparency for the public and members. Why would we want to undermine that by suggesting that unions could go through a secondary process and have a little meeting of the executive committee under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992?

[Ms Eagle]

Does my hon. Friend, who has been active in a union, think that if union rules could in future be changed through a quick meeting of the executive, without its telling anyone, it would be a good thing, or a bad thing? In my experience, it would cause chaos.

[Stephen Doughty]

Indeed. It sets a dangerous precedent. Labour Members want to promote democracy and transparency in trade unions and in all civil society organisations, so that their members can see what is going on, how decisions are made and how money is spent. We support such transparency. We support the transparency around the funding relationships between affiliated unions and the Labour party. Unfortunate comments have been made by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham. We are clear about our support; the Labour party registers donations. We are not just talking about trade unions affiliated to the Labour party; we are talking about all trade unions and the impact this will have.

As the hon. Member for Glasgow South West pointed out, a month is effectively taken out of the period by the need to secure approval from the certification officer. That seems to be another attempt on the side to curtail this period and reduce the time the trade unions have to deal with this, making things even more difficult.

We talked about the complexity of the process. Renegotiating check-off agreements with employers is not straightforward, particularly if you have a disaggregated workforce across many different locations. This is a particular problem for unions such as USDAW, which has many branches and represents many employees, including in small retail outlets and companies. That could require the renegotiation of check-off arrangements with hundreds and, in some cases, thousands of employers across both the public and private sectors. That is an incredibly complex enterprise. If trade unions are required to do this by law, they will do their very best to comply, but they have to be given a reasonable amount of time to do so.

There was a mention of the plastic bags legislation, but the argument applies to any new legislation; it would apply if we were imposing new regulations on businesses around tax reporting or introducing new regulations around health and safety. I sat on the Consumer Rights Public Bill Committee. Complex changes take a long time to bring in. This is about what is reasonable, when it comes to insuring that those involved can comply with a new legislative framework.

We talked about the practical operational impact on, say, membership databases. There will be a need to redesign membership forms and distribute them across the country, and to train shop stewards and union officials on how to implement the new legislation. Some of those changes have to be deferred until a rule-making conference, because they link into other decisions. That is the crucial point.

What surprises me is that although these concerns have been raised multiple times by unions and the TUC, and the Minister accepts that those representations have been made, this statutory instrument makes no attempt to deal with any of those concerns. That smacks not of reasonableness but of the ideological approach that we have repeatedly seen the Government take towards the trade union movement and society.

We have heard about the particular challenges that USDAW faces; its conference is due to take place. The Minister seemed almost to give a grudging apology. It would be interesting to hear further from her on that. It is not asking for the moon; it is asking for a reasonable period in which to comply. It wants to comply—it made that clear—but its conference has been booked years in advance at a venue that has been paid for. It has to inform its members of conferences, and those members have to get time off work. The changes are being rushed in on 1 March 2018, just weeks before USDAW holds its conference, at which it would be able to decide to implement the legislation. It seems to me—and I think it would to many members of the public, whether they are politically minded or not—an unreasonable measure. I appeal to Government Members to look at that.

Take the politics out of this and look at what is reasonable. Would hon. Members expect businesses and other civil society organisations suddenly to have to comply with measures when they have processes in place to deal with the changes and have indicated a willingness to comply? I will oppose this statutory instrument. The Government’s whole approach to this legislation from day one has been deeply unfortunate and smacks of its real agenda, which is to shut down the voice of working people up and down this country and, indeed, wider civil society.

--- Later in debate ---

[Margot James]

Not yet. There are 13 months to go before the due date. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough talked about “wholly irresponsible” regulations, and many hon. Members challenged the basis of what we are doing, not just the length of time that we are allowing unions before they must comply with the law. We Government Members feel that if people’s money is directed into a fund that is used for political purposes, they should at least know that, and have a say in whether they want that to happen. There may be a divide between the two parties on this, but I am afraid that we Government Members feel strongly that if people have money taken off them, they should have a say in where it goes, and that is all that the measure ensures.

Mr Stringer, you rightly allowed Members a degree of liberty in going beyond the confines of what we are debating; I shall take advantage of that and challenge the idea that we have taken an ideological position on this matter. I do not for one instant believe that. In fact, our research showed that almost half of the money raised through donations to political funds is, as the hon. Member for Glasgow South West pointed out, devoted to other campaigns, and not Labour party funds. Almost half goes on the sort of good campaigns that he mentioned. It is a complete myth that this is some sort of political attack on the way that the Labour party is funded.

[Stephen Doughty]

The Minister is generous in giving way. She makes the argument that a lot of money goes to other important campaigns, such as the USDAW campaign on stopping violence against shop workers. Let us take the politics out of this for a moment; will she listen to the very reasonable concerns felt by a number of unions about the length of the transition—points echoed by the right hon. Member for West Dorset, a former Cabinet Minister who sits on her party’s Back Benches? He made an important point about the timing, and the impact that the transition period will have on some very reasonable unions that are trying to comply with the legislation.

[Margot James]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention; he made a powerful speech earlier. Of course I noted the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset, and I will give them consideration, but I have made the case—I will not repeat myself—for why we feel that 12 months is acceptable. This comes on the back of an Act that was passed almost a year ago.

Exiting the EU and Workers’ Rights

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Monday 7th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

I will come on to say something about that in a few seconds, which I hope will satisfy the hon. Lady.

No one listening to this debate should think that we have any intention of eroding the rights that we enjoy in this country through our process of leaving the European Union. In fact, the opposite is true. We will be using the legislation before this House to entrench all existing workers’ rights in British law, whatever future relationship the UK has with the EU.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I have been listening to the Secretary of State, but does he understand why people would have concerns that the Government might seek to undermine those rights given that this Government introduced the Trade Union Act 2016?

[Greg Clark]

This Government introduced the national living wage as well, and I will go on to talk about some other proud achievements. It is a helpful feature of this debate that we are able to say, clearly and unambiguously, that all the rights derived from membership of the EU will be imported into UK law through legislation in this House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend is exactly right and we continue that tradition today. I am not sure that we regulate the morals of apprentices, but the health of apprentices is very important. The Conservative party has been the party of workers’ rights over the centuries, from Shaftesbury’s Factory Acts to William Hague’s Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The Conservatives have always understood that the decent treatment of people at work is not at the expense of industrial success, but a foundation of it.

Since 2010, the Conservatives have strengthened the rights of workers. This April, the Government introduced the mandatory national living wage for workers aged 25 and above, meaning that a full-time low-paid worker earns £900 more a year than they did before its introduction. We have also cracked down on employers who break national minimum wage and national living wage law. We have increased the enforcement budget by more than £9 million and strengthened enforcement so that people who break the law face an increased financial penalty—it has increased from 100% to 200% of arrears.

Our measures to protect workers’ rights and support our labour market have meant more people in work, more people earning a living and more people contributing to the prosperity of the UK than ever before. Our high employment rate is complemented by strong protections for UK workers, so our country is not only a great place to start a business, but a great place to work. However, to maintain that position, especially as we leave the European Union, we cannot stand still. We need to make further changes that support workers’ rights in the tradition of Conservative Governments over the years.

[Stephen Doughty]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Greg Clark]

I have given way already to the hon. Gentleman.

This Government will not only maintain existing rights, but set a very high standard. Like most Members of the House, I want to deliver an economy that works for everyone. Workers’ rights have an important part to play in that. We will build on the work that the Government have done to combine the dynamism of the UK labour market with robust protections for workers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

I note that when Conservative Members talk about being the party of the workers, they can barely keep a straight face. I am pleased to open the debate for the Opposition. Indeed, I am very pleased that we are having this debate at all, given the events of last week and the attitude of Government Members earlier this afternoon.

Our country is going through a period of dramatic change. We are in a rare moment in history. The decisions made in the coming months will reshape our country and the world for generations to come. As I said to the Secretary of State last week, in moments of such national importance, it is imperative that the Government are subject to scrutiny by the elected representatives of the entire country. That is not in any way to diminish the result of the referendum. Like the Secretary of State, I voted to remain. Like him, I fully accept the democratic decision of this country and am committed to implementing it.

In voicing their preference to leave the European Union, however, the people of this country did not get the chance to say what they wanted in its place. They voted to set off on a journey, but were not asked their preferred destination. As a result, the Government cannot treat the referendum result as a blank cheque. They must work through a process of dialogue with the House to ensure that Britain exits the European Union on terms that carry the country with them. There are few areas on which Brexit has more potential to impact on people’s lives than workers’ rights.

[Stephen Doughty]

Does my hon. Friend agree that when the Foreign Secretary says he wants to scrap the social chapter and the International Development Secretary says she wants to halve the burden of EU employment and social rights, we should be very concerned? That is exactly why Parliament should be scrutinising this issue.

[Clive Lewis]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. It reminds me of the old adage “Never trust a Tory”—that is what this comes down to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Lewis]

I will rephrase that, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not intend to brand the Secretary of State a person who exaggerates excessively; he seems to me to be a decent guy. However, given that the Brexit triumvirate of Mr Johnson, Mr Davis and Mr Fox have so regularly said and done things that contradict the promises that we have heard today, it is hard to be confident that the Government will deliver.

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way again. He is very generous. Does he not also find it incredible that the Secretary of State prayed in aid the appointment of Baroness McGregor-Smith to a position that involves advising on employment rights? She was ennobled at a time when her company, Mitie, and its subsidiary MiHomecare were being investigated by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs for non-payment of the minimum wage to its workers.

[Clive Lewis]

I did not know that, but do you know what? It does not surprise me in the slightest.

Fourth Industrial Revolution

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Thursday 8th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mak]

We have had a positive, insightful and wide-ranging debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) for co-sponsoring the motion. He gave an eloquent and impressive speech, and I was particularly pleased to hear references in it to Margaret Thatcher. The hon. Gentleman is a great credit to his party.

I thank the Minister for his full response. I was heartened by his commitment to ensuring that the fourth industrial revolution has an important place at the heart of the Government’s new industrial strategy. As the Government move forward with their proposals, it is important to make sure that the fourth industrial revolution is built in, and not bolted on, to their strategy. I was particularly heartened to hear about the Minister’s personal involvement in the fourth industrial revolution, including his flat-pack car, which I look forward to seeing in action.

I thank all hon. Members who have spoken, from across the House, for their speeches and for the time and thought that they have put into preparing for today’s debate. It was good to hear about the excellent examples—whether local businesses, universities, research centres, enterprise zones or other forms of engagement—from constituencies across the country of engagement in the fourth industrial revolution. This must be a national success, not just a regional one. I thank the Opposition Front-Bench representatives for their contributions, because this is an important cross-party issue.

Britain is in a strong position to become a world leader in the fourth industrial revolution. We must adopt the pro-free enterprise, pro-innovation approach that has given the country success in the past. I thank the House for the opportunity to debate this important issue.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House acknowledges that the UK is in a strong economic position to take advantage of the Fourth Industrial Revolution; welcomes the view of the World Economic Forum that fusing physical, digital and biological technologies can promote further economic growth; notes that small and medium-sized businesses across the country contribute invaluable expertise and market leadership; and calls upon the Government to continue introducing and supporting policies that keep the UK at the forefront of this revolution in the future.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As you will be aware, very important concerns have been raised in House about the leaking of a draft report from the Committees on Arms Export Controls, of which I am a member. I share the deep concerns about the leaks and their ability to frustrate our proceedings. May I ask you, first, to provide us with an update on that process?

I wish secondly to raise a separate matter relating to the Committees on Arms Export Controls. Madam Deputy Speaker, you will be aware that the Committees are formed of four constituent Committees—the Defence Committee, the Foreign Affairs Committee, the International Development Committee and the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, which I am sure will be replaced by the new Committee. Members of all those Committees are allowed to attend the Committees on Arms Export Controls, to take part in their proceedings and to vote. Given the very serious matters that the Committees are investigating at the moment, is it in order for their members to withdraw from the proceedings at a crucial moment to frustrate other members moving on to formal consideration of such matters in the Committees—they declared that they were withdrawing with the express intent to prevent such proceedings from taking place—with the knock-on effect that other members of the constituent Committees were not therefore able to speak, vote or take part in the further proceedings of the Committees? Is that in order, because it seems to me that it is not? These are very important matters, and Parliament should be able to proceed in holding the Government to account.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for notice of his point of order. I am aware that he has spoken to the Clerk of the House and the Speaker’s Office. The hon. Gentleman is aware that this point of order was raised both yesterday and earlier today, and the Speaker gave a very full response on both matters the hon. Gentleman raises.

On the first matter, there has not been an update, other than what the Speaker said during points of order today. He was very clear to say that this is not actually a matter for the Chair. It is not for the Speaker of the House of Commons to decide what is proper conduct or what is disorderly in Select Committees. Individual members of Committees are certainly allowed to leave whenever they want to. Again, whether the timing of that has been decided elsewhere is not a matter for the Chair—either me or, indeed, the Speaker.

The Speaker has said very clearly that it is for the Liaison Committee to look at this matter and then for the Committee concerned to decide whether it is serious enough for it to make a special report which would be referred to the Privileges Committee. That is the proper way to proceed. If the hon. Gentleman looks at Hansard, he will see a very full exchange between the Chairs of the Foreign Affairs Committee and of the Defence Committee and Mr Speaker during points of order today. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answers that the Speaker has given. I thank him for advance notice of his point of order.