Whistleblowing Awareness Week

Debate between Wendy Morton and Mary Robinson

Thursday 23rd March 2023 Westminster Hall

[Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Whistleblowing Awareness Week.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh. I am pleased to be here today to consider Whistleblowing Awareness Week. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for whistleblowing, I would like to recognise the work of our secretariat, WhistleblowersUK, and other partners and supporters in bringing together a programme of events to mark the UK’s first Whistle- blowing Awareness Week.

What is Whistleblowing Awareness Week? In short, it is a celebration of the people and organisations who work hard to do the right thing and shine a light on abuse, corruption, fraud, patient safety concerns and other wrongdoing that would otherwise continue to go unchecked. It is a chance to use the past to shape the future, and to acknowledge what works and what needs to change. It is an opportunity to demonstrate how reforming existing legislation with a new whistleblowing law would put the public interest first and ensure that UK standards are global standards.

We need standards that protect whistleblowers by empowering people to speak up and normalising doing so, investigating concerns, stopping wrongdoing and saving money. We need to have penalties—this must have teeth—that incentivise organisations to do the right thing, and education and access to help and support people and organisations.

Why do we need to raise awareness? Whistleblowers are often described as the canary in the coal mine. What an analogy that is; we all know that the canary suffers in order to let people know that there is a problem. Whistleblowers are ordinary people who see something that is wrong and speak up to stop it, with an expectation that those who have the authority to do something will put things right. It is a fair expectation, but, sadly, it is often far from the reality.

Very often, others in an organisation are also aware of the wrongdoing, but only one person has the courage to speak out and to keep speaking out—the person who will not be fobbed off. This is the person with integrity, who believes in policy and procedures, who believes that the organisation they work for wants to know, and who believes that it will act to stop wrongdoing and protect others from abuse or harm.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

I hope to speak in the debate later, so I will keep my intervention short. Does my hon. Friend feel that we need some sort of cultural shift and cultural change that creates a safer space, with the attitude that whistleblowing is not bad, but can actually help an organisation, society and individuals?

[Mary Robinson]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We know that when people do not speak out, it is because of the culture. We have seen that this week with the report on the Metropolitan police, which I will go on to consider later. She is entirely right that the culture in organisations needs to be changed. I believe that that culture change needs to be led by a change in our legislation.

Name an industry or a sector, and I can name a scandal brought to light by whistleblowers, who have been stifled, ignored or gaslit rather than listened to, and who have then been bullied and harassed out of their jobs. People who see that happening think twice about blowing the whistle. Unfortunately, as my right hon. Friend has rightly said, all too often people who could and should speak out fear the culture in an organisation and are silenced by it, with devastating results.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Robinson]

That is at the heart of the problem. If people see that nothing is going to happen, why would they come forward? If they see that somebody is going to be bullied out of their job, why would they come forward? If they see that complaints or information about wrongdoing that they take to their senior leadership will not be acted on, why would they come forward? That is exactly at the heart of the problem.

We need to consider not just the impact of whistleblowers coming forward, making a complaint and letting people know what is going on, but also the impact of not doing that. We need to consider the impact when there is somebody in the police force who is known to indulge, or suspected of indulging, in bad or criminal behaviour, but nothing is done, nobody speaks out and the leadership does not act.

For this Whistleblowing Awareness Week, participants at a series of events in Westminster have heard from a wide range of whistleblowing experts from across the globe—legal, financial and human resources professionals, and those who have turned their lived, first-hand experience into action and passion for change. On Tuesday morning, my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup) chaired a roundtable on whistleblowing in the healthcare sector. I hope she will speak about that later. We heard from a range of experts, including the national guardian for freedom to speak up in the NHS, Dr Jayne Chidgey-Clark. That role came out of the recommendations of the 2015 “Freedom to Speak Up” report by Sir Robert Francis KC, which found that NHS culture did not always encourage staff to speak up or facilitate their doing so. That failure had a direct and negative impact on patients and staff.

Time and again, we have seen the impact of that failure in health trusts across the country: people have been impacted by scandals and lives have been lost in tragic circumstances. The national guardian is tasked with leading the change in NHS culture—look, it must change. Her most recent report includes many positive voices, which is good, but it also highlights that 58.3% of freedom to speak up guardians believe that barriers to speaking up include the concern that nothing will be done, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly) said. Alarmingly, 69% believe that a fear of retaliation or suffering as a result of speaking out is a deterrent. Clearly, there is more to be done to break down these barriers.

Patient safety depends on the success of a speaking-out culture, and that should sit alongside a learning culture where mistakes are not covered up for fear of blame. Doctors, nurses and other staff in healthcare settings have lives in their hands and they must feel comfortable, confident and able to report errors and mistakes.

It is often the whistleblowers themselves who give the most powerful testimony. Dr Chris Day is not only a whistleblower—he raised serious patient safety concerns while working as a junior doctor in an intensive care unit—but a change maker who exposed a gap in whistleblowing law that was subsequently reformed. After having blown the whistle on the understaffing that he witnessed, there was another battle on his hands: who can be held to account under existing legislation? As a junior doctor, his training and career were in the hands of Health Education England, who argued that as it did not directly employ Dr Day, the law did not apply to it. He challenged that, and the court found that junior doctors did come under the extended definition of worker. It also found that a worker could have two employers under whistleblowing legislation. Although the issues that he raised as a whistleblower have not been resolved, Dr Day’s actions have resulted in a change to the law.

During our roundtable on Wednesday this week, exploring the new approach to whistleblowing, we heard from Jonathan Taylor, who exposed bribery in the oil and gas industry. Although his disclosures resulted in SBM, a Dutch multinational, paying out more than $800 million in fines and related payments, his whistleblowing also put a stop to an economic crime that had run to hundreds of millions. A statistic that is shared many times in Parliament, including by me, is that 43% of economic crime is detected and exposed through whistleblowers. The Minister has previously said he believes that about 100% of economic crime detection could be attributed to whistleblowing. So, if we want to know where economic crime is being committed, we need to encourage whistle- blowers and others to speak out.

However, speaking up came at a huge personal and professional cost to Mr Taylor. Not only did he spend a year under house arrest in Croatia, but he lost his career. We cannot overestimate the mental and emotional toll that whistleblowing has on people, and he is not alone in his experience. It is no wonder, after having heard the detriment suffered by so many whistleblowers, that people are averse to speaking up.

We also had the pleasure of welcoming Zelda Perkins, who, in breaking her non-disclosure agreement, shone a light on sexual abuse in Hollywood and helped to expose a top film executive who would later be prosecuted for sexual assault and rape. She went on to co-found the Can’t Buy My Silence campaign, which seeks to make NDAs unenforceable except in the case of preventing the sharing of confidential business information and trade secrets, which was their original purpose. The campaign’s efforts contributed to the Department for Education’s introduction of its pledge to end the use of NDAs in universities. That is progress, but we need to go further.

NDAs are often used not just to settle employment disputes, but to silence people. Fraud, corruption, incompetence, environmental damage, abuse, avoidable deaths and cover-ups are silently buried through the use of those agreements. Instead, I would like to bury the use of NDAs for that purpose. We have a situation where some people want to speak up but are bound by such legal agreements, and we have others who could speak but fear reprisals and repercussions. Either way, wrongdoing goes unchallenged. So now what?

Baroness Casey’s Met police review highlights systemic and chronic problems that can arise across any organisation where there is a culture of fear and cover-up. We have a police force riddled with misogyny, racism and homophobia, with inadequate management structures, a lack of leadership and a culture of fear. She describes an organisation where:

“The culture of not speaking up has become so ingrained that even when senior officers actively seek candid views, there is a reluctance to speak up.”

Whistleblowers must have trust and confidence in internal processes, but whistleblowers often come from outside these organisations. I remain concerned that our lack of an inclusive and effective whistleblowing law will continue to hinder progress.

Colleagues may know that last year I brought forward a private Member’s Bill that would reform our whistleblowing legislation. Although it fell because of lack of time, I remain determined to see changes to how we support, encourage and protect the brave people who are prepared to speak out and report wrongdoing. The Bill proposed to create an office of the whistleblower, which would be responsible for setting, monitoring and enforcing standards in the management of whistleblowing cases. The office would provide advice services and a clear avenue for disclosure, and it would direct investigations and handle redress for whistleblowers. Importantly, it would support anyone blowing the whistle.

[Wendy Morton]

My hon. Friend makes it clear that whistleblowing can affect anyone, no matter what organisation they are attached to. Does she agree that that is why we need some changes to the legislative framework to ensure this much-needed change happens? Cultural change alone will not do it; it needs a nudge from Government.

[Mary Robinson]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right in making that point. In the context of employment law, the existing legislation relates only to people in an employer-employee relationship. As I was going on to say, there is evidence that an office of the whistleblower would incentivise disclosures. People would have a safe space in which to speak, and currently they do not have that across every sector and in every way.

High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill

Debate between Wendy Morton and Mary Robinson

2nd reading
Monday 20th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Morton]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. Obviously, a huge amounts of engagement has gone on, and in deciding on the location, extensive optioneering work has also considered connectivity, engineering and environmental matters as well as cost issues. The Manchester airport station is located as close to the airport as possible, given all of those competing factors.

[Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)]

I welcome the airport connectivity, which is brilliant not only for our domestic rail travel but for those connections that we need with the airport. Would my hon. Friend agree that it is also crucial because we want to welcome investment into the north? What effect does she think this new airport link will have on that?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Wendy Morton and Mary Robinson

Tuesday 2nd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con) [V]]

Yesterday, the last case arising from Jonathan Taylor’s whistleblowing concluded, with Paul Bond being sentenced to three and a half years in prison for conspiracy to give corrupt payments. Jonathan Taylor has been vindicated again, but he remains stranded in Croatia due to the Interpol red notice issued by Monaco based on a debunked allegation by his old employer in retaliation for his whistleblowing. Now that the relevant court cases are complete, will my right hon. Friend redouble his efforts to bring Mr Taylor home? Will he also speak to ministerial colleagues about the need for whistle-blowing law reform so that, in future, people like Jonathan Taylor get the support and protection they need?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Wendy Morton)]

We are providing ongoing consular support to Mr Taylor. Consular staff have been in regular contact with him and his UK lawyer. The British ambassador in Zagreb met him in December to discuss his concerns and explain the FCDO’s consular functions. I spoke to the Monégasque Foreign Secretary and the Croatian Secretary of State for European Affairs in November and sought assurances that both authorities were giving full consideration to the fact that Mr Taylor is a whistleblower. The UK is a state party to a number of multilateral conventions that require adequate arrangements to be made for the protection of whistleblowers. The UK has made appropriate provisions to do so in our own law, demonstrating the seriousness with which we take our obligation, and we are encouraging our international partners to do likewise. We are, however, unable to protect whistleblowers in other jurisdictions that may not have the same law.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Wendy Morton and Mary Robinson

Tuesday 17th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Wendy Morton)]

I am more than happy to speak to the hon. Gentleman after these questions. The travel advice remains in place, and I know that the Foreign Secretary will be updating the House more broadly.

[Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)]

Two of my constituents are currently aboard the MS Marina, en route to Miami. The cruise liner was refused entry at the ports of Lima and Panama yesterday, and will reach Miami by tomorrow afternoon, but they are concerned that they may be refused entry to the USA when they reach their destination. Both have underlying health problems and are, understandably, worried. What discussions has the Department had with counterparts in the USA about the repatriation of some of our constituents who are in this position?

[Wendy Morton]

My hon. Friend is another example of a Member who treats constituency casework with great seriousness and she is right to raise it here, alongside others. Foreign Office staff are working flat out, as are my colleagues and I, to tackle this. We are aware of a number of cruise liners in the region, and I will ensure that she has the right information. I am more than happy to talk to her after these questions.

Charitable Fundraising Websites

Debate between Wendy Morton and Mary Robinson

Tuesday 28th November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered charitable fundraising websites and associated charges.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. Britain is a nation of givers. More than 160,000 charities are registered in England and Wales, and, thanks to the generosity of the British public, last year they raised almost £10 billion in donations. We all immensely value their role in our communities and public services, and I know that Members will join me in thanking them for the tremendous part they play in providing support for vulnerable and local community groups.

Charities contribute to every walk of life, such as medical research, animal welfare and local hospices, to name but a few. However, larger organisations such as Cancer Research UK, the British Heart Foundation and Oxfam—those with incomes of more than £5 million —make up only 1% of registered charities, and 40% of charities have an income of less than £10,000 a year. Those charities tend to be embedded in our communities, often engaging with local causes.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

I know that my hon. Friend will raise some interesting points, but will she also join me in recognising that today is Giving Tuesday? That provides a good opportunity for us all to celebrate the work across the country of the small charities that she refers to, as well as local, national and international charities.

[Mary Robinson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. She is right to point out that Giving Tuesday is our opportunity to celebrate the volunteers who work in our communities to raise money for charities.

Charities rely largely on donors and Government grants for their income. Over the past decade, donating to charities online has become a well established practice. Websites such as BT MyDonate, Virgin Money Giving and JustGiving, which is the largest site, have become the go-to places to donate to charities. Such platforms allow donors to search for their preferred charity and donate money using their smartphones, computers and other electronic devices. In a few clicks, donors can register their debit or credit card, choose their charitable cause and donate.

Last year, websites, social media and apps accounted for more than £2.4 billion in donations, representing 26%, or one in four, of all donations made in the United Kingdom. That figure will only increase as charities adapt to the evolving technological landscape. People like using online platforms because they provide a hassle-free way to present a fundraising case, and they allow individual donors to set up their own mini fundraising campaigns for causes close to their heart. Indeed, many hon. Members may have used the sites to raise money for charities in their own constituencies, perhaps by running the London or Manchester marathons, or by climbing Kilimanjaro—if they are very athletic and adventurous.

Rather than using traditional means of donation, such as cheques or bank transfers, young donors in particular find it far more convenient to donate to charities through online platforms. If we look at the spread of donations across age, we see that last year 58% of donors who contributed online were aged between 16 and 44. Many charities also find using third-party sites more convenient. They provide a huge bonus by attracting funds from friends and family who fundraise on a smaller scale for large charities, such as for the hugely successful Motor Neurone Disease Association ice bucket challenge some years ago.

However, the ability to raise funds generally comes at a cost. Most online giving platforms charge charities an administration or transaction fee for processing each donation. Those typically range from zero to £2 per donation and can make a significant difference to the overall amount that a charity receives, especially if the total comes from many small donations that are all subject to a fee. There are also set-up or monthly rental charges that charities pay for a presence on fundraising websites.

Most fundraising platforms are not-for-profit organisations, although a few sites are run for profit. JustGiving is run for profit. Charities, depending on their size, are required to pay a monthly subscription fee to JustGiving of up to £39, plus VAT, and are charged a 5% fee on the amount raised. The fee is taken from the gift aid received, if eligible, or is deducted from the total if no gift aid can be claimed. Virgin Money Giving is a non-profit company. Charities registering with it are required to pay a one-off set-up fee of £150 and it takes a 2% fee on donations, but all the gift aid is received by the charity.

I declare an interest as a Greater Manchester Member of Parliament, because one online fundraiser, the Wonderful Organisation, is located in Manchester. Wonderful.org is the only site in the UK not to charge any fees. Its core belief is that charities should receive 100% of donations from their fundraising efforts, including gift aid. It is a non-profit organisation run by volunteers and funded entirely by corporate sponsorship from philanthropic businesses, which guarantees that charities, fundraisers and sponsors pay nothing and that the charity or good cause gets all the benefits in full.

As hon. Members may have gathered, the landscape for charities and giving sites is confusing. Transparency is therefore a fundamental issue facing the sector. A recent survey revealed that almost 80% of the people who use the largest run-for-profit platform are unaware that it is a for-profit business. To put that into context, when we register for a bank account or credit card, we understand that institutions have a legal responsibility to explain to customers certain charges and fees that they may be obligated to pay. With large sums being donated and handled, transparency is important.

It is apparent that when people donate online many are unaware of the fees and charges. The sector is telling me that users are simply not aware or do not know. For example, in the wake of the Grenfell Tower fire, Karolina Hanusova created a fundraising page on JustGiving. Through her fantastic efforts, she raised more than £400,000 for the survivors and victims of the fire, but £25,000 of the total was taken in processing fees. Karolina was surprised to find that such a significant amount was deducted from the total raised.

Karolina’s case is not uncommon. Immediately following the Manchester Arena bombing in May, the Manchester Evening News began an appeal, raising £2.5 million through the JustGiving website, but that was subject to deductions of £100,000 in fees. Time and again, I have come across users who registered with fundraising websites but were not aware of such substantial charges being taken from the donated funds. Users need to be aware of the costs and fees so that they can make an informed choice, just as we would expect with any other financial body. The payment process needs to be clear from start to finish.

Public trust in charities is critical and has become a key question over recent years following various crises and media coverage of the sector. Worryingly, this year’s Charities Aid Foundation report revealed that only 50% of the population—half, that is—believe that charities are trustworthy. Clearly, that has to be taken seriously by the sector, and I believe that the sector is now doing that.

I understand that the Charity Commission and the Fundraising Regulator recently met 14 major UK giving platforms to discuss these issues and to agree principles collectively to increase public understanding and transparency. Online fundraising platforms have agreed to provide information to the Fundraising Regulator about their complaints process, and to work with the regulators and the Government to explore how their transparency on fees and charges can be improved.

I am pleased that registration with the Fundraising Regulator is now open to third-party fundraisers, offering platforms an opportunity to demonstrate a public commitment to meeting the highest standards for fundraising. I urge the Government to encourage platforms that have not yet registered to consider doing so and signing up to the code of practice.

However, the Fundraising Regulator is a self-regulating body with no formal powers, so I further ask the Minister, what powers can be granted to the regulator to give it some teeth in dealing with platforms that do not adhere to the code of conduct? All charities must submit their accounts or annual returns to the Charity Commission, and those are available to view on the commission’s website. One benefit of compulsory charity registration is increased transparency across the sector. Perhaps the Fundraising Regulator could replicate that best practice. I suggest that to move towards that aim and promote best practice and transparency, online platforms should also be encouraged to submit their accounts to the commission or Fundraising Regulator.

Anecdotally, many people assume that fundraising platforms are themselves charities. They are not. They are more akin to agents or intermediaries. Although I am of the opinion that not-for-profit platforms are a better fit for the charitable sector, they too have operating costs that are ultimately borne by charities. Card-processing fees are the principal culprit. All charities must pay transaction fees on receipt of donations from PayPal, credit cards and major banks.

I have met representatives of Wonderful.org, whose running costs are covered by corporate sponsors. That is a great initiative. Will the Minister highlight what steps the Government are taking to encourage large corporations and banks to engage with the charitable sector on this issue? For instance, they might provide assistance by exempting card charges and processing fees. After all, corporate responsibility is at the core of many banking companies’ charitable activities, and that would be one way to engage with charities that clearly matter to the general public.

I would like to mention gift aid. Some platforms use a part of taxpayers’ gift aid—a scheme enabling charities to reclaim tax on donations—to cover their costs. Gift aid is a significant cog in the charitable sector. It increases the value of donations to charities by allowing them to reclaim basic rate tax on donations as long as the donor pays tax. Charities can take the donation and reclaim the basic rate of tax from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.

Since the introduction of gift aid in 1990, more than £13 billion in relief has been paid to UK charities. The commitment of this and previous Governments to supporting and expanding gift aid has been a tremendous boost to charitable fundraising—currently, it allows charities to claim an extra £25 for every £100 donated—but although some sites automatically pass on the full amount, others do not. In my opinion, the gift aid reclaimed should benefit the relevant charity, rather than being used to pay an intermediary cost.

I believe that the way forward must be ensuring, with guidance from the Fundraising Regulator and the Charity Commission, that online fundraising platforms are transparent and clear from the outset. I am encouraged by the action that has been taken to update the regulator’s code of practice, but I seek further assurance that the Government will take on board fundraisers’ concerns to make the process as transparent as it needs to be and get more people giving with confidence to our wonderful charities and good causes.

Unauthorised Encampments

Debate between Wendy Morton and Mary Robinson

Thursday 12th October 2017 Westminster Hall

[Wendy Morton]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her contribution. I think transit sites and allocations are part of what is actually a much bigger issue. I will come on to some of those points later.

Mess is so often left at these sites. The state that some of the sites are left in following an eviction is quite simply a disgrace. There are masses of litter and household waste, while industrial waste is commonplace—be that bricks or leftovers from building work. I have seen huge piles of garden waste, which often appears to be from work carried out by members of these sites then brought back to the encampment and dumped.

[Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)]

I agree with my hon. Friend: this is about the impact on local communities when waste is left on a site. These are recreational spaces—in my case, on Park Road football field in Cheadle—and are left in a terrible state afterwards. There is also quite a substantial clean-up cost to the community, which leads to that feeling of real resentment against the unauthorised encampments and the Travellers.

[Wendy Morton]

My hon. Friend makes a helpful intervention. It is often the waste left behind that creates the tension within our communities. On one occasion, I was due to meet a constituent at a site in my constituency from where an encampment had recently been moved on, to see the state it had been left in. Shortly before I left my office, the constituent called and advised me to bring a pair of wellies. When I arrived at the site, I sadly realised why I needed them: because of the state the site was left in. It is not uncommon for human excrement to be left on those sites. For members of the council’s “Clean & Green” team to have to go and clean up these sites is really not fair, not acceptable and certainly not what the council tax payers of Walsall borough pay their council taxes for.

Recently, after Travellers moved on from an encampment at Aldridge airport, there were, in addition to the waste we have sadly come to expect, four empty boxes that had contained TVs and even a car. Sadly, that was again left for the council to clean up. Surely the cost burden of cleaning up that mess should not fall to my local residents. Some councils are now successfully prosecuting fly-tippers, so is it not time to start prosecuting and fining Travellers for the mess that they leave in their wake? As well as the costs that come with repairing the destruction of public land and the clean-up of waste, there are wider societal costs.

Ceramic and Brick Industries

Debate between Wendy Morton and Mary Robinson

Wednesday 15th June 2016 Westminster Hall

[Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) on securing it.

As Members know, in the autumn statement the Government committed to building 400,000 new homes in this Parliament. I am pleased that brick manufacturers want to play their part in achieving the Government’s ambitious goal. Yet with that ambition comes a need for the steady production and supply of building materials for Britain’s new homes. When Britain last built 200,000 new houses a year, it required stocks of more than 1 billion bricks and the production of almost twice that number to fulfil orders and keep the prices of basic construction materials stable. Although I am pleased that figures from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills show an increase in brick production, and that the Office for National Statistics and the chair of the Brick Development Association agree with those figures, we need to ensure that the brick manufacturing industry and the other elements that go into building our homes are recognised. They must be appreciated as an important staple for house building and increasing market values.

[Wendy Morton]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, as we seek to build more houses, the construction industry needs a continuity of construction materials? That includes bricks, roof tiles, pipes and everything else that is required for constructing a home.

[Mary Robinson]

I totally agree. We need exactly that package if we are to achieve this ambitious target.

I welcome the British Ceramic Confederation’s ceramic EARTH campaign, which aims to raise the profile of the industry’s important contribution to the UK economy. To be able to compete internationally and secure jobs, we must ensure that all sub-sectors receive mitigation measures to fully guard against the leakage of carbon investment and jobs outside the EU, and there must be action to lighten the cost of UK/EU energy, climate and environmental policies, which harm the sector’s ability to remain competitive on the international stage.

I share an interest with my hon. Friends the Members for Aldridge-Brownhills and for North Warwickshire (Craig Tracey): my constituency is home to the national headquarters of Wienerberger, the UK’s third largest brick manufacturer. Wienerberger is responsible for producing all the elements of construction. It is the only multinational producer of clay block for walls, clay roof tiles, ceramic pipe systems, and concrete and clay pavers. It provides what the firm calls a “whole building envelope”.

[Wendy Morton]

My hon. Friend is talking about one of her local companies that produces bricks. Does she accept that the many companies across the country that manufacture such products, from small family-run companies to the much bigger national and international companies, are all affected by the EU ETS and the market economy status?

[Mary Robinson]

That is exactly right. They have an all-pervasive influence.

Innovation and speed are important in meeting the Government’s targets. Innovation can drive down construction time. For instance, Porotherm—Wienerberger’s clay block walling system—has been used to build an apartment block complex in South Harrow, which is currently being finished. It has reduced the construction time by 20% from 15 to 12 months. One floor is rising every eight days, readying the roof for installation within 10 weeks. That new method of brick production has reduced overall construction time and speeded up access to home ownership. Therefore, where there is demand for good-quality housing, and where there are brownfield sites with appropriate planning permission for construction, we should recognise that developments in the brick industry enable quicker construction and allow properties to be released much sooner than the market is currently used to.

It is clear from Members’ contributions that investment in new capacity is needed to help the industry with the production of bricks. That should be at the forefront of our concerns. As Members have mentioned, in the EU ETS phase 3, all ceramic sectors and sub-sectors are deemed at risk of carbon leakage for direct carbon costs, but they will not be compensated for indirect carbon costs. The key issue for phase 4 legislation is to guard against the leakage associated with indirect and direct costs. However, there are shortcomings to those proposals—most notably, an insufficient number of free allowances for the industry. Thus there would be a uniform percentage reduction, known as the cross-sectoral correction factor, to keep within the minimum. To avoid the CSCF, the introduction of a tiered approach, although helping a limited number of sectors, could be damaging to other sectors. Under this tiering, ceramic installations would see a significant reduction in the level of free allocation received. That is worrying for the firms that are involved in the production of bricks, roof tiles and drainage pipes, which may cease to receive free allowances. That will make investment in UK operations challenging and undermine much needed investment in capacity.

The UK ceramic industry is steeped in heritage. Now more than ever it is vital to Britain’s growth. As we seek to build more homes, we should remember that good homes are built on strong foundations, and we should do all we can to ensure that those foundations are built on a strong brick and ceramic manufacturing industry.