Whirlpool: Product Safety System

Gill Furniss Excerpts

Wednesday 26th April 2017 Westminster Hall

[Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Ms Ryan. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) on securing this important debate and on his actions in leading this campaign. I also thank hon. Members present for their thoughtful, eloquent and constructive contributions. We agree that being faced with a fire in one’s own home is a terrifying thought. We have heard some terrible stories—particularly of the deaths of two young men that my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) detailed so eloquently.

Overall, I am very disappointed that we are in this situation at all. Whirlpool’s actions have been wholly inadequate—that is the best way I can put it—and the Government have not done nearly enough to remedy the situation. That such a serious failing of consumer protection has happened calls into question the whole product safety regime. That is all the more disappointing because, as other hon. Members outlined, the Government commissioned an independent consumer product recall review by Lynn Faulds Wood in 2015, which was published on 18 February 2016. The Government’s response to that review was sadly limited. Where is the interim report that my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith mentioned? I hope the Minister can explain.

We have very little certainty over what will happen to consumer protection standards throughout the Brexit process. We have certainly been given little comfort in that regard—it seems at this point that consumers will not be championed during that process. Other hon. Members spoke of the horrendous danger and extremely serious consequences of fires in tumble dryers and other white goods and electricals. That Whirlpool has not issued a full recall at this point in time is staggering. It must fully recall the affected tumble dryer models now, before Parliament dissolves, because lives are still in danger. Peterborough trading standards and the Government should intervene and urge Whirlpool to issue that recall.

We must also see a serious reform of the consumer protection regime. I hope the Minister will outline the steps she will take in that regard because, when people’s homes are destroyed by fire and their possessions turned to ashes, when people have died due to white goods and electrical fires, and with the state that the product recall and product safety regime is in, it is unconscionable that we should continue as we are. What assessment has the Minister made of an independent national system to monitor and enforce consumer protection?

Organisations such as Which? have done a vast amount of good work in investigating and bringing attention to this issue. The Government would no doubt prefer that work to be done by external organisations, but they have a duty that they are not fulfilling. Statistics from Electrical Safety First show that the success rate of an electrical product recall in the UK is typically below 20%. Will the Minister explain what steps her Department has taken to improve that abysmal recall rate?

The product recall system is not working. Customers do not register because they rightly suspect that they are asked to so that they can be spammed by companies about future products. If consumers had confidence that product registration was only for recalls and safety concerns, we might see some change. Electrical Safety First has argued for a centralised website for product registration similar to that in America. Perhaps a similar approach could work here. Many hon. Members asked the same question.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith described the extent to which Whirlpool has avoided engagement, dialogue and responsibility. Again, it has been left to consumer organisations such as Which? to pursue legal action. While Peterborough trading standards should have enforced the appropriate actions by Whirlpool when the faults became apparent, instead Which? had to take it to court to get it to act. Only then did Whirlpool take the straightforward step of updating its product guidance. Does the Minister find that the actions taken so far by Peterborough trading standards to be sufficient and appropriate?

We need a robust product safety system that is fit for purpose. Anything less will continue to endanger people’s lives. Be assured that a Labour Government, if elected on 8 June, would prioritise reform of the product safety framework to protect consumers, and to make companies such as Whirlpool take proper responsibility for their products. The people of Britain deserve better, and we should make no apologies for preventing further incidents and fatalities. Please deal with Whirlpool robustly.

Post Office Closures

Gill Furniss Excerpts

Tuesday 25th April 2017 Westminster Hall

[Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Sir Edward. I congratulate the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) on securing this debate. I pay tribute to the Communication Workers Union, which helped us highlight these issues to the public and MPs.

The Post Office is a trusted national brand with a long history. It is instantly recognisable to people across the United Kingdom. It forms part of the everyday fabric of life, offering a wide range of products and services, but it also provides an anchor for communities, decent jobs and, importantly, access to services in rural or urban deprived areas. Instead of making the Post Office fit for purpose for the 21st century, the Government have let that well-loved and trusted institution fall by the wayside and contributed to its managed decline. The Government are intent on privatising our public services. They used to say that they would support a robust Post Office, which former Prime Minister David Cameron promised would be the front office for Government, but they have totally failed on that promise by overseeing a steadfast strategy of cuts to the service that have caused thousands of job losses as well as a decline in the services provided.

The Labour party has made it clear that it would halt further privatisation of the Post Office and instead invest the £80 million of public money that goes into it to ensure the long-term sustainability of branches and services. We will ensure that services are retained and promoted, click and collect facilities are expanded, and banking and financial services, which we know are vital to financially excluded people, are provided.

There were 62 closures and franchising programmes and 500 job losses from the Post Office’s cash handling section in 2016, and more than 2,000 jobs have been lost in total since 2016. On 10 January 2017, it was announced that a further 37 Crown post offices would go under the same franchising scheme, meaning that 300 experienced post office staff and some 127 financial specialist roles will be cut across the network.

Crown post offices typically are directly owned and run by the Post Office. They have directly employed staff and they are often located on prominent high streets. Although there are only 286 Crown branches, they bring in a significant amount—between 10% and 20%—of the Post Office’s overall revenue. Privatising Crown post offices and transferring them into shops such as WH Smith hugely compromises the services provided, causing overall consumer satisfaction to fall, longer waiting and servicing times and poorer access for disabled customers. There are 10% fewer counters per branch in WH Smith branches than in Crown post offices, and 17% fewer foreign currency and business banking positions. At least 30 postmasters have retail businesses in a Bargain Booze franchise.

Not all franchises have worse provision than before, but the overall trend is saddening. Recent independent research for the Government showed that the Post Office continues to deliver more than £4 billion in social value each year to people and businesses throughout the UK.

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend highlights research that proves that the service deteriorates when post offices move into WH Smith branches. When we add the fact that 40% of closures are in the most deprived urban communities, we can see that the most disadvantaged people in this country are in dire straits when it comes to having access to a good post office.

[Gill Furniss]

I completely agree. It is saddening that people in deprived areas get further and further away from accessing the financial services that are necessary to them.

The privatisation of Royal Mail was, quite simply, the transfer of large sums of public money to the already well-off. Since that privatisation, the Government have promised a transformative vision for the Post Office as

“a genuine Front Office for Government”,

and a significant expansion in its banking services, but neither of those promises have borne fruit. Post Office revenues from Government services have fallen by some 40%, and its income from financial services has risen by only 2%—it has not even kept up with inflation. The Government talk about cost-cutting measures, but £3.3 million was spent on refurbishing branches that were then franchised in 2016, at an average cost of £100,000 per branch.

I was pleased that the Government initiated a consultation about the Post Office last December. At that time, the CWU delivered 75,000 postcards signed by members of the public calling for the Post Office—the “People’s Post”—to be saved. Only weeks later, before a consultation response had even been produced, the Post Office announced 37 more Crown post office closures. In fact, nearly five months later, we still await the Government’s response.

The Government’s track record shows that they have been happy to cut public funding at any cost. They have shied away from communicating with the people affected. The Government’s response to the consultation that closed on 21 December has been delayed. Will the Minister tell us when she planned to publish that response? Why have financial services been cut instead of a promoted? Why have we not looked at the example of a Banque Postale in France, which has successfully provided income for the Government and, crucially, financial services for those who need them most? What contingency plans are there for franchises that are coming up for renewal and new franchises? The Association of Convenience Stores has major problems with its members who, due to the hike in business rates, may no longer wish to provide franchise services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Margot James]

I will not give way. I accept that not all Crown post offices lose money; but the majority of those that have been franchised did.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) put the case very well for the investment made by taxpayers and the Post Office in the service in his constituency; I join him in congratulating Mr Sanjiv Patel on taking the risk, as many others around the country have done. They have then found that it was good not only for their business but for the consumer. The Post Office is doing more for customers and doing it more efficiently for the taxpayer, and it is ensuring that post office services remain on our high streets throughout the country.

Franchising or hosting some Crown branches is part of the Post Office’s long-term plan to ensure that the network is sustainable. It is not about closing services; it is about moving a branch to a lower-cost model, often in a better location for customers, and securing and improving delivery of services. The change from a Crown to a franchise or host branch has been undertaken previously in many locations and is a proven success in terms of sustaining services, as post offices share staff and property costs with a successful retailer. We have heard examples of that this morning. As I was saying, Crown branches have moved from a £46 million annual loss in 2012 to a break-even position today. That is no mean feat. There are still loss-making Crown branches, which is why I do not think we can stand in the way of the Post Office as it makes its service more efficient and sustainable and more accessible to a wider number of people.

[Gill Furniss]

The Chamber is packed. What the Minister believes to be the facts, as she has given them to us, do not ring true with the concerns and experiences that even Conservative Members have described. It seems bizarre that when so many of us tell her there are problems she says the Government should not stand in the Post Office’s way; it does not seem the correct response. It seems to me that we have the responsibility; the Government must provide a proper service for all communities. Clearly, the figures that many eloquent Members have given today are at odds with the Minister’s view.

[Margot James]

I have talked so far mostly about financial issues. It is undisputed that the Crowns were losing £46 million and are now breaking even. There are still some loss-making ones to deal with. I appreciate that changes of the kind we are considering are not easy, especially when they involve staff who have worked in a place for many years. I know that the hon. Lady has had a briefing from the Communication Workers Union, and I have had meetings with it on several occasions; I sympathise with its position. However, it is essential that the business should continue to manage its costs to ensure that it can meet the challenges faced by high streets, let alone the Post Office, now and in the future, as the way we shop and get access to services continues to change.

Several hon. Members made points about Government services, and I agree that in 2010 the Government had hopes that the Post Office could take over many more such services; but the rapidity with which some of them migrated to the internet meant that that hope did not bear enough fruit. The staff in Crown branches that are being franchised have the opportunity to transfer to the franchisee in line with the TUPE process; or they can choose to leave the business. The Post Office offers a generous settlement agreement, which reflects the hard work, commitment and dedication that many employees have shown over the years. However, I reiterate the point that a more efficient Post Office is able to support and supplement thousands of small businesses, as my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) noted; she spoke with great authority about the needs of people in her largely rural constituency. The Government take those needs seriously and have honoured a commitment to maintain a service, even where it is not viable on a financial basis, to people living in the rural parts of her constituency.

Fuel Poverty

Gill Furniss Excerpts

Tuesday 21st March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

We are in a cold homes crisis, with more than 4 million households in fuel poverty across the UK. Across the UK in 2014-2015, there were 43,900 excess winter deaths. According to the World Health Organisation, a minimum of 30% of those deaths resulted from cold homes. In my constituency, there are 7,241 households struggling in fuel poverty. Life in fuel poverty is miserable. No one should be choosing between heating their home and eating. Children should not be growing up in cold, damp rooms. Old people should not have to stay in bed or live in just one room because they cannot warm their house.

This debate is happening because the last Administration’s fuel poverty strategy, published in 2015, mandated it to happen. The current statutory target is to lift as many fuel-poor households up to band C energy efficiency standard “as is reasonably practicable” by 2030. This Government’s record on fuel poverty and their performance against that target are abysmal and going nowhere fast. The charity National Energy Action estimates that at this rate we will miss the target by 80 years. Yes, 80 years. A baby born today will not see the end of fuel poverty in the UK in her lifetime. That is a scandal. That is approximately calculated by noting that around 30,000 fuel-poor houses per year are being brought up to band C. That is so far from what is needed that I do not know how the Government can defend it.

What response to this striking lack of progress have we had from the Government? They say that they will spend less on energy efficiency measures—measures that are recognised in their own fuel poverty strategy as the most sustainable way to make permanent progress on fuel poverty. Under a Labour Government in 2007, we saw 2.5 million energy efficiency measures implemented in a single year. That number has now fallen off a cliff. Under this Government’s policies, we will see 12% of that. Total investment fell by 53% between 2010 and 2015, and England is now the only UK nation without a Government-funded energy efficiency programme. That has not been the case for 30 years.

The Government lack the necessary political will and determination to address this injustice. It is so frustrating, not just because it condemns thousands of households to continued misery, indignity and ill health, and not just because the youngest, the oldest and the poorest in our society are hit hardest by fuel poverty, but because the solutions are so clearly and obviously sensible.

Properly addressing fuel poverty would ease the burden on the NHS. National Energy Action estimates that £1.6 billion is spent each year on treating the impacts of cold homes. Labour’s commitment to insulate 4 million homes would create over 100,000 jobs and apprenticeships, as well as training programmes across every region of the country. Those homes would have reduced energy bills, which is another key driver of fuel poverty. A report by Cambridge Econometrics and Verco found that every £1 invested in an ambitious energy efficiency programme such as Labour’s would return £3. The plan would reduce natural gas imports by 26% by 2030 due to reduced demand, save £8 billion a year on energy bills, increase relative GDP by 0.6% by 2030 and reduce carbon emissions.

One of the ways to bring energy efficiency measures to fuel-poor households is through the energy company obligation or ECO. The newly costed ECO will cost £640 million a year—a 42% reduction compared with the previous phase of the programme. While the Government may say that that is more tightly focused on fuel poverty, the reality is a massive funding cut. This Government are betraying those in fuel poverty and snubbing their own legal targets.

A key risk factor for those in fuel poverty is living in a household that is off the gas grid. Non-gas households rely on more expensive fuels, such as electricity and oil, to heat their homes and often live in harder-to-treat, energy-inefficient properties with no central heating or solid walls. Some 20% of fuel-poor households are off the gas grid, yet they have received only 1.4% of the measures under the affordable warmth element of ECO since 2013.

[James Heappey]

That ties in with the earlier point made by the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows). We could encourage the electrification of heat as a solution for those who are off the gas grid. Heat pumps can operate efficiently and reduce heating costs for those who would otherwise be at the mercy of the oil market. Does the shadow Minister agree that that should be a priority for such customers?

[Gill Furniss]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. We must be bold in these areas and consider everything that we possibly can. I thank him for that intervention.

Gas distribution networks, which manage the network infrastructure that transports gas to homes and businesses across GB, should deliver 14,864 new connections to fuel-poor households, but funding for new central heating systems available through the ECO is limited to 4,000 systems, so funding is lacking for over 10,000 households. In the spring Budget, the Chancellor completely failed to act on that and provided no extra funding to ensure that the most affected fuel-poor households are given the support to stay warm. Regrettably, that seems to be a running theme in the Government’s approach to tackling fuel poverty. Given the shortage of funds, I hope the Minister can explain how exactly the Government intend to tackle the off-gas homes that are most at risk of severe fuel poverty.

The warm homes discount is an annual payment of £140 to around 2.1 million households to relieve pressure on their energy bills, but it was revealed last year that only 15% of those in receipt of the discount were actually in fuel poverty. The Treasury, then under the new editor of the Evening Standard, said that the system was working, but the scheme’s targeting is a total failure. The Minister for Climate Change and Industry said in a Delegated Legislation Committee last year that the Government would address that through better data-sharing in the Digital Economy Bill, but the Government are yet to explain how they will improve targeting.

A co-ordinated, comprehensive approach to fuel poverty at a local level can be key to tackling the cold homes crisis. In its 2015 cold weather plan, Public Health England made it clear that fuel poverty and reducing excess winter illness and death should be deemed core business by health and wellbeing boards and should be included in their strategy plans. However, research has found that 40% of the 152 health and wellbeing boards in England failed to address fuel poverty in their strategies. I have written to my local health and wellbeing board to ask them about its progress on implementing the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines. It replied that the savage cuts to local funding and the lack of Government funding to address fuel poverty directly have made it difficult to implement the NICE guidelines fully. This Government have been standing still on fuel poverty and going backwards on energy efficiency measures to address it.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

We debated this matter in the previous Parliament, but we never seem to resolve it. The Prime Minister has hinted that she may put a cap on prices, but if she is going to do that, she should really tackle the big six cabal, which was raised in the House last week. It is not good enough to tell people that they should shop around and get a different supplier—that does not work. It is about time that this Government put their money where their mouth is and tackled the big cartel.

[Gill Furniss]

My hon. Friend’s intervention is timely in that several hon. Members have put that case well. The Labour party’s last manifesto proposed to freeze the energy prices of the big six.

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend made an important point about the contribution made by local authorities in drawing together the work that happens at a local level. Does she agree that, to reduce the number of excess winter deaths, it is important at a national level that the Government co-ordinate across Whitehall and that meaningful conversations happen between Departments?

[Gill Furniss]

That is absolutely the way forward. We should be looking at new build homes that contain all the necessary measures, and many Departments have a part to play in that. Sheffield Heat and Power is good example of how to take waste and turn it into energy. That is what I mean when I said that we must be bold. We have to take every opportunity and learn lessons from other countries.

[James Heappey]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Gill Furniss]

No, I must move on.

The Government’s flagship green deal policy is universally recognised as a failure. It was well intentioned, but we warned at the time that implementation was going very badly. By the end, the green deal improved only 15,000 homes at a cost of £17,000 per home. No replacement policy is in sight so far as I am aware.

The Government have cancelled the zero-carbon homes initiative. By contrast, Labour would build 1 million new carbon-neutral homes and insulate 4 million more. Labour would roll out a £90 million “homes for heroes” programme that offers free home insulation to disabled veterans. The Labour party has committed to making energy efficiency a key infrastructure priority. That makes economic sense and is the right thing for the future of the UK.

CSC: Redundancies

Gill Furniss Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2017 Westminster Hall

[Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) for securing this debate and for his eloquent words. From the level of detail that he went into, we can be in no doubt about his passion for the subject; I will not repeat everything he said. I also note the excellent points made by many other hon. Members, especially the remarks from my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr Hendrick) about his experiences in his constituency, which has already had the hard knock of job losses at Hewlett Packard, where workers have not received a pay rise for four years.

Labour is the party of working people and we will always stand up for them. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield set out plainly the impact that the redundancies will have on CSC workers and the potential knock-on effect on public services. By March, the company intends to make 1,600 working people—a third of its UK workforce—redundant. At the end of March, it will merge with HP Enterprise Services to form DXC Technology, and the new company will be the largest single IT services supplier by quite a long way. In the run-up to the merger, CSC announced two redundancy programmes totalling 1,600 redundancies from 5,400 staff. Those are just the latest in a long line of cuts at CSC, which has had nine separate redundancy rounds this financial year as well as reducing its contractor programme.

The cuts are being rushed through, causing chaos within the company and huge dismay for CSC workers. Some of the roles are being offshored, but that is usually done in a controlled manner. We must consider that, with the scale and the speed of the cuts, CSC will endanger its own ability to provide its IT services; that is the view that we have heard from other hon. Members today, as well as from Unite, the union that represents many CSC workers. CSC provides critical IT systems for many private and public sector organisations, including the Metropolitan police, the NHS, Network Rail, civil nuclear fuels, and the Passport Office. Any knock-on effect to critical IT services could have very serious consequences.

Let us be clear about what is happening. The redundancy programme seems to be a knee-jerk reaction in order to reach arbitrary financial targets and ensure a favourable merger for CSC shareholders, which are largely US financial institutions, pension funds and hedge funds. If the targets are achieved, CSC’s senior executive team, which is based in the USA, will share out $90 million in bonuses. The chief executive officer, the chairman and the president will get between $37 million and $44 million—that is just one person, by the way. Needless to say, the nine members of the executive leadership team are all men, as are eight out of the nine directors. Senior managers of large parts of the UK business who have questioned the process have been removed. I have heard from Unite, the largest union in CSC, that throughout 2016 CSC’s UK management repeatedly advised it that the UK business was healthy and profitable. So this is not about emergency measures to save a failing business; it is corporate greed that will have an enormous impact on the CSC workers who face redundancy and potentially on the public services that depend on CSC’s IT systems.

In June 2013, the then Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), described CSC as a “rotten company”. Sadly, it seems that nothing has changed. It certainly appears that CSC is dangerously and negligently putting critical parts of UK infrastructure, Government services and private industry at risk, as well as unceremoniously getting rid of 1,600 workers in a quest for a successful merger and bumper bonuses.

I look forward to hearing the Minister outline how she will protect British workers and public services. Will she be willing to carry out an impact assessment of the critical IT provision that CSC currently delivers for many Government services? Also, will she please tell us how she will support the workers who face redundancy? Finally, I would like the Minister to comment on how supporting a company that often makes redundancies and then outsources the jobs overseas can possibly benefit our community, and how it can possibly be described as looking after UK workers.

Steel: Preserving Sustainable Jobs and Growth in Europe

Gill Furniss Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2017 General Committees

[The Chair]

We now have until 3.37 pm, which is one hour after the start of the statement, for questions to the Minister. I remind Members that questions should be brief. It is open to a Member, subject to my discretion, to ask related supplementary questions.

[Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson. First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon for his helpful and insightful introduction. I also take this opportunity to congratulate him and his colleagues in the APPG on steel and metal related industries for their recent “Steel 2020” report, which has no small relevance to our discussions. I am sure the Minister has read it thoroughly.

In Yorkshire, the Royce Translational Centre at the Advanced Manufacturing Park in Rotherham will be delivered with £4 million of European regional development fund money. That is expected to support growth and innovation in companies employing more than 13,800 people and is estimated to generate £668 million in the Sheffield city region. Is it the Minister’s opinion that EU funding is still underused and suffering from low take-up and a lack of strategic use? Have the Government reduced their enthusiasm for directing industry towards EU funding?

We would welcome a commitment to match EU funds granted before Brexit. On current timescales, EU funds are set up to 2022, while the Government’s pledge is only up until 2020. Will the Minister confirm that the total funding available post-Brexit will be significantly reduced due to the lack of access to EU funding programmes, including Horizon 2020?

[Mr Hurd]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has made public statements about honouring EU funding commitments. Beyond that, in terms of support for things such as technical innovation and research, which she rightly talked about—it is fundamental to a more dynamic future for the sector—she will be well aware that the Government have made it extremely clear that we see innovation as the cornerstone of the industrial strategy. In fact, this Government have made the largest commitment since 1979 to science, research and innovation.

Through the industrial strategy, we are creating an environment in which sectors—as we have said, we fully expect the steel sector to be towards the front of the queue—come to us and say, “This is our vision of the future in terms of both sustainability and growth. This is how we think we can contribute to what you need in terms of productivity, jobs and better wages, but this is what we need from you in terms of unlocking that potential.” That is the kind of conversation we expect to have with a number of sectors, including the steel sector.

I do not know enough about the specific facility that the hon. Lady mentioned, which I am guessing is in her constituency.

[Gill Furniss]

No, it is alongside it.

[Mr Hurd]

Okay. I am certainly interested to know more about that. It seems part of an ecosystem that we need to nourish in the future, because access to innovation and new ways of making and doing things will be critical to the sustainable future that we all want for this foundation sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gill Furniss]

The UK steel industry is a foundation industry that underpins many others and has a supply chain that runs across the country. It is an innovative sector, with new products constantly being created. It is also a sector that requires careful planning and a co-ordinated strategy, particularly around trade but also around training, around access to funding for research and development and for innovation, and around decarbonisation and energy costs.

We are here due to the insufficiency of the answers given to the European Scrutiny Committee on the Government’s position across issues affecting the steel sector before the Brexit vote, so I would have expected the Minister to be at pains to make the Government’s strategy as clear as possible. I can see that he is not doing so, for several reasons, I understand the complexities of the negotiations ahead, but the Minister has left a lot of questions unanswered.

Recently in the Chamber, I noted in a question that the industrial strategy Green Paper referred to steel on only one occasion. The only clarification that I received from the Government then was that they had had very productive discussions with the industry; the Minister has certainly reiterated that today.

I am very concerned about the lack of any clarity on the compensation energy package. It is getting closer and closer every day, and we certainly do not want to be at the cliff-edge, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon described it. I am sure we will all be pursuing the matter further. We really need some concrete answers about the Government’s plans for trade defence measures, about international co-operation on Chinese dumping and overcapacity, about what will be available once EU funding sources have gone, and about the ETS.

There is still a crisis in the steel industry. Steelworkers throughout the UK and working people in the industries that depend on steel all along the supply chain deserve some clarity on what is being done to support the sector at this crucial time.

Draft Important Public Services (Health) Regulations 2017 Draft Important Public Services (Border Security) Regulations 2017 Draft Important Public Services (Fire) Regulations 2017

Gill Furniss Excerpts

Wednesday 1st February 2017 General Committees

[Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. As the Minister outlined, the Trade Union Act 2016 introduced a requirement that at least 50% of eligible union members must vote in an industrial action ballot for it to be lawful. In addition, union members in sectors that the Government define as providing “important public services” will be subject to the requirement that any ballot for industrial action must achieve a 40% threshold of support.

Five sets of draft regulations determine the sectors covered by that additional 40% restriction. Today we considering the health sector, namely emergency, urgent and critical healthcare services; fire and firefighting services, including the co-ordination of emergency response; and border security and border functions for the control of entry and exit of people and goods into and from the UK.

I will not overly repeat the many issues that the Opposition have with the Trade Union Act as a whole and with these specific regulations, because I spoke to them at length yesterday when we considered their application to the education and transport sectors. However, it is important to reiterate that the regulations on voting thresholds for certain groups must be seen in the wider context of the Trade Union Act, which is a broad assault on working people and the right to strike.

The Government claim that, by imposing additional regulations on certain groups, industrial action is made more democratic and accountable. If they are so concerned about the democratic ability of unions, why did they delay and frustrate the implementation of electronic balloting for union members? I remember from yesterday’s debate that the Minister told us that e-balloting is under review. She initially said that the review would be published later this year, but then said that it would be published “soon”. I would like to know the answer today. I am pleased to hear that there may yet be progress on this initiative, but I think that it betrays the Government’s real motivations, which are to hamper the ability of working people to bargain collectively.

When strike action in the UK is already at an all-time low, and trade unions already take great care to maintain a level of essential service, loading an incredibly highly restrictive set of activities with further red tape is clearly ideologically motivated, and that is not good for governance.

[Stella Creasy]

It is unusual and telling that such a restriction is being brought in. I know that the “r” word referendum is not a popular one in this House with many people, but were we to impose such a threshold on referendums, or indeed on general elections, I am sure that there would be debates about that. No such arguments have been made, yet when it comes to people’s working rights, somehow the Government feel that such measures are entirely appropriate. What does my hon. Friend think that says about their approach to democracy and genuine engagement with people?

[Gill Furniss]

That is a very good point and we should all think about it.

The Government’s actual intention in introducing the regulations, which they expressed in their impact assessment of the Trade Union Act, is to reduce number of days lost to strikes by two thirds. However, Office for National Statistics figures show that, in 2015, fewer working days were lost to strikes—it is the second-lowest annual total since records began in 1891.

We in Labour believe that the right to strike is a fundamental human right that should be applied equally to all workers. The International Labour Organisation’s Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention 151 also provides that public servants must enjoy the same political and civil rights as other employees. The regulations clearly fly in the face of that convention.

Midwifery staff in hospitals would be affected by these regulations. Yesterday, I quoted Cathy Warwick, chief executive of the Royal College of Midwives, who wrote shortly after the first ever strike by the RCM since its foundation in 1881. She said that

“women needing urgent and emergency maternity care were getting it because midwives had sat down with management in advance of the day to ensure that a safe service would still be running, staffed by midwives, regardless of the strike.”

The new laws are unnecessary. They undermine the right to strike and are unlikely to be effective and the Government are dragging their feet on measures that would actually improve union democracy. I am very tested by the fact that we will still have to wait for the introduction of e-balloting. A lot of good points about people’s rights to withdraw their labour were made in yesterday’s debate, and about that being fundamental for working people. Above all, I want to reiterate the damage the measure could do to industrial relations in those areas of work. Rather than things becoming more democratic, with more people allowed to participate, there will be more union officials running about trying to get the numbers rather than talking and seeking compromise or whatever results we try to get in industrial relations negotiations.

I repeat that I will not support the measure. I should like an answer on e-balloting and want the Minister to take on board the fact that we already have evidence that striking is a last resort. Strikes happen when agreement cannot be reached. We already have evidence that the services we are discussing today will always ensure that the public are not unduly affected by their strike action.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gill Furniss]

Opposition Members are clear in what we believe. In conclusion, I go back to the example of the midwives. They have had one strike in more than 100 years; the next could be in the next century. It seems bizarre that we are setting legislation for the next century, not for here and now. The legislation seems draconian and confrontational to members of trade unions because there is no evidence of any particular problem. As has been stated over and again, we have lost the lowest number of days to strike since records began, so why are we doing this? It affronts me that the Prime Minister, only recently when in America or wherever, keeps going on about workers and says, “I’m all for workers’ rights.” Well, she is not, is she? No Conservative Members are, because if they were, this draconian legislation would not have been brought before the Committee.

[Michael Gove]

Speaking as someone who was deprived of employment because I chose to support a strike and to take industrial action, the attribution that none of us care about workers is entirely misplaced. More than that, is the hon. Lady really arguing that the industrial relations landscape is so perfect that we need no amendment and that working people who do not happen to be members of trade unions should receive no protection from strikes in vital public services?

[Gill Furniss]

I would argue that trade unions are already under very strong measures and have to prove everything that they do. As my hon. Friends have already said, trade unions are not just about strikes—Conservative Members must get used to that—because that is the last resort of any workforce. They lose wages and their families go without food. Many, many years ago, we saw such long strikes, where workers struggled. It is a big struggle for many people and—

[Adam Afriyie]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Gill Furniss]

No, I will not. What most people want is meaningful negotiations, where they can get issues resolved, and that is what is wanted by the management of most organisations, and required by the workforce. We do not have workforces crying to go out on strike; we have workers who want to be respected, who have good working conditions and are not at the mercy of zero-hour contracts or having to have three jobs at once just to support themselves. If we provide good working arrangements for people that would eradicate strikes, would it not? However, there must always be a fundamental right to withhold one’s labour. That is the right of everyone wherever they are from.

[Chris Stephens]

I agree with everything that the shadow Minister has said. Can she also confirm that trade unions play a vital welfare role in the workplace? For example, my trade union, Unison, has a welfare fund that has helped many low-paid workers across the UK.

[Gill Furniss]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I was a health and safety representative for many years, and it is a vital role to work alongside management to point out any hazards and actually prevent accidents from happening in the workplace, which could be costly to any organisation in compensation.

[Adam Afriyie]

I am finding it really hard to grasp why the hon. Lady would not wish to stand up for those people who are members of trade unions who are forced to go out on strike in effect or lose their union membership merely because a very small percentage of people vote to do so.

[Gill Furniss]

The point you make is a point I know you believe in, but it is about an individual’s democratic right to strike. The legislation that you have introduced and the lack of a decent impact assessment reveal no evidence of any ongoing problem. What grieves me is e-balloting, because it seems so unfair that the review of that proposal is sometime in the future. Surely it would have been natural justice to have had that review and the legislation running side by side so that at least unions could have organised properly and quickly to take on board likely future legislation. That is another example of the unfairness and confrontational nature of the regulations before us.

[The Chair]

I remind Members to address other Members by their constituencies and not to refer to “you”, because that addresses me.

[Gill Furniss]

I apologise, Mr Bailey.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gill Furniss Excerpts

Tuesday 31st January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

I admire the subtle and unobtrusive way in which my hon. Friend smuggled his personal experience into that question. I assure him that we will continue to take a thoroughly co-operative approach with European colleagues.

[Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

The recent “Steel 2020” report noted that steel is a key foundation industry for the UK that underpins our aerospace and automotive sectors, as well as many others. However, in the Government’s 130-page industrial strategy Green Paper, steel is mentioned just once. Can the Minister explain why he is neglecting this important industry?

Draft Important Public Services (Education) Regulations 2017 Draft Important Public Services (Transport) Regulations 2017

Gill Furniss Excerpts

Tuesday 31st January 2017 General Committees

[Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans.

As the Minister has outlined, the Trade Union Act 2016 introduced a requirement that at least 50% of eligible union members must vote in an industrial action ballot for it to be lawful. In addition, union members in sectors that the Government define as providing important public services will be subject to the requirement that any ballot for industrial action must achieve a 40% threshold of support. Today we consider the transport and education sectors.

The Government have continually sought to argue that their proposals in the Trade Union Act will increase democracy and widen participation, but their neglect of electronic voting and insistence on outmoded processes reveal that as a smokescreen for an ideological attack on working people and trade unions. It is alarming that such an important and controversial component of the Trade Union Act is being determined by secondary legislation, resulting in a more limited opportunity for Parliament to scrutinise and debate provisions that are likely to undermine the right to strike for millions of UK citizens.

Trade unions are a force for good and for equality in our society, particularly in an increasingly insecure world of work. Labour remains fundamentally opposed to additional restrictions on industrial action that will limit the rights of millions of ordinary working people to strike.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that if a trade union cannot get 50% of its members out to vote in a ballot, with 40% in support, it cannot really have a very good cause and therefore that the public should not be inconvenienced and workers should not be deprived of the right to work?

[Gill Furniss]

It is up to the management negotiating with trade unions to prevent strikes from happening. This legislation will be more acrimonious and will let the hon. Gentleman’s Government off the hook when it comes to strikes.

[Chris Stephens]

Given that only postal votes can be used, is it not difficult for trade unions running industrial action ballots by post that the number of post boxes in the UK has reduced sharply in the past five years?

[Gill Furniss]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. We see with the closure of many post offices how the Government’s policy affects all walks of life.

The Government have also strived to give the appearance of a democratic process in the formulation of the Act and the associated regulations. The consultation on ballot thresholds in important public services received 205 responses from a variety of sources. As I will outline, those responses by no means gave a green light to the Government’s ideas, either on the definition of important public services, or on the restrictions on the ability to carry out proposed strike action.

These regulations must be seen within the wider context. They are part of a slew of regulations that limit trade unions. I thank the Government for listening to reason on the transition period before the rule change for political funds and await their new proposal. I welcome their changes to the initial proposals on the inclusion of ancillary workers in these categories, but make no mistake, the Act is an unnecessary, unjustified and disproportionate restriction on the right to strike for millions of working people.

Strike action in the UK is already at an all-time low. Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that 2015 had the second lowest annual total of days lost due to strike action since records began in 1891. What is more, the mechanisms already in place in the UK to deter or avoid strike action mean that most disputes are settled without strikes. There are more than four times as many strike ballots than there are actual stoppages. As Cathy Warwick, chief executive of the Royal College of Midwives, wrote shortly after the college’s first ever strike since its foundation in 1881,

“women needing urgent and emergency maternity care were getting it because midwives had sat down with management in advance of the day to ensure that a safe service would still be running, staffed by midwives, regardless of the strike.”

Unions are always careful in taking industrial action to offer essential cover and never to put at risk life and limb.

Asking members to take industrial action is always a matter of last resort. The priority for unions is to improve mechanisms for dispute resolution and is evidenced by the TUC initiative in the Southern rail dispute. The Government are pushing an image of trade unions as selfish organisations that threaten public safety, but that could not be further from the truth. Not only are new laws and regulations on strike action unnecessary, but they threaten to aggravate and unsettle the industrial relations we have in this country. The new laws set an unrealistic benchmark for industrial action, undermining the right to strike for many public sector workers. For example, in the sectors covered by the draft regulations, in a ballot where 50% of members take part, unions will need an 80% vote in favour before any strike action can go ahead. This is an unacceptably high threshold.

It is in the interests of workers, employees and the public for disputes to be resolved quickly and amicably. However, the new restrictions will undermine constructive employment relations in the UK, by forcing unions to put more effort into driving up ballot turnout and less into amicable settlements. The British Institute of Human Rights, Liberty and Amnesty International UK said of the then Trade Union Bill, now the Act:

“The government’s plans to significantly restrict trade union rights—set out in the Trade Union Bill—represent a major attack on civil liberties in the UK.”

The right to strike is protected by a number of international and European provisions, including the International Labour Organisation convention 87, the European social charter and the European convention on human rights.

The ILO defines essential services as those the disruption of which would endanger lives. In their response to the Department Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy consultation, Tonia Novitz, Alan Boggs and Ruth Dukes, professors of labour law at the universities of Bristol, Oxford and Glasgow respectively, said:

“Many of the government’s proposed ‘important’ services do not fall under this definition (for instance, education and transport).

We are concerned that the drafters of the Bill have introduced a term, ‘important public services’, which has no precedent under international or British law. This does not accord with the UK’s treaty obligations under the ILO Constitution or Conventions and is inconsistent with the established ILO jurisprudence regarding treatment of ‘essential services’.”

The Government have sought to defend the 40% threshold by citing decisions of the European Court of Human Rights that relate to cases from France and Spain, but those cases deal with the restrictions on the rights of police officers and military personnel. They do not justify restrictions on strike action by public sector transport workers or teachers.

On education, I note that the National Union of Teachers said in its consultation response:

“The ILO Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention 151 also provides that public servants must enjoy the same political and civil rights as other employees. The NUT would argue that any interference with this right must be fully justified and that the Government has failed, as yet, to provide any such justification.”

I have heard nothing from the Minister to convince me that the Government have provided any such justification for why teachers, as public servants, should have their political and civil rights in the form of their ability to organise strike action hampered in this way compared with other workers.

The Government seem to ignore the fact that strike action by teachers often carries significant sympathies from parents, who recognise that adequate conditions for teachers and a good teaching environment are in the interests of their children. It should not escape anyone’s notice that fee-paying schools are exempt from the regulations, as they are not public services. The regulations will ensure that public sector school workers have less capacity to strike than those working in schools that charge fees. The right to strike is a fundamental human right that should be applied equally to all workers.

In the consultation responses on education, 47% of respondents disagreed with the proposed list of bodies and workers. Although that contained a mixture of views, only 17% were in agreement. Some respondents felt that strike action in education services poses no significant risk to the public. Evidently, the Government disagree, but unless they can put forward a coherent case, we should go no further with the regulations.

As for transport services, out of 119 responses, 23% agreed and 38% disagreed with the proposed list, with respondents feeling that strike action in transport services was unlikely to pose risks to the public. The Prime Minister talks of the Tories as the party of the working class, yet in a country where trade unions are already heavily regulated, she wants further restrictions to rob workers of their right to take industrial action, leaving workers badly treated and essentially powerless. For all the reasons given, I cannot support the regulations and will press them to a Division.

Statutory Pubs Code and Pubs Code Adjudicator

Gill Furniss Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Members for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) and for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) on securing the debate and for being real supporters and defenders of pubs. The pubs code came in after much wrangling in Parliament. It had been called for by many stakeholders in the industry. One of its most important objectives is to provide a level playing field for tenants, often in local pubs, so that they can compete fairly with pubcos in negotiations. This was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins). I congratulate the House on highlighting certain issues in the code, including the successful introduction of the market rent only option for tenants, which enables them simultaneously to seek the best deal for their pub while negotiating with one of the large pubcos.

The Government then set out to appoint a Pubs Code Adjudicator, and the decision was made to appoint Mr Paul Newby to the position, to oversee the running of the code, to provide information about the code and, when necessary, to enforce the code. In the midst of all this, there has been great tension between some groups in the pub industry, particularly around the role of the Pubs Code Adjudicator. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield highlighted some of the issues around conflicts of interest; he made some sensible points. He and others have made eloquent contributions on that issue. They include the hon. Members for Leeds North West and for Tewkesbury, the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) and my hon. Friends the Members for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) and West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey). I will not repeat the points that they have already so eloquently made.

The pubs code plays an essential part in moving towards a level playing field for pub tenants and the larger pubcos. In doing so, it provides an outline for protecting pub tenants against the very large pubco organisations. The market rent only option was successfully introduced to give pub tenants more flexibility in their operations, and it was welcomed by many stakeholders. However, as we have heard, there are serious questions about the effectiveness and implementation of the code, and about the role and conduct of the Pubs Code Adjudicator and the perceived conflicts of interest relating to him. The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Richard Arkless) used his legal background to explain clearly how that perceived conflict of interest could be a serious barrier, and said that the issue needed to be looked into.

Since the introduction of the code last year, 77 referrals have been put forward to the Pubs Code Adjudicator. Most of them have related to market rent issues, a crucial matter for many of the small operators in the sector. There is clearly a demand for arbitration via the code, and it is a matter of great concern to me and many others that not one of those cases has yet reached resolution. I recognise that the Pubs Code Adjudicator has been in post for only six months, but he should have made his mark on the industry in that time in order to try to gain the confidence of the market. It is essential that the process of referrals and subsequent decisions by any adjudicator should be seen to be fair and free of any conflict of interest. This is an issue that the Government need to address urgently, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool said.

The pub industry employs 850,000 people in the UK, mainly in the local pubs that form the hub of many communities. At this time of Government cuts to vital local services, we have seen community pubs stepping in to provide libraries and cafés to serve their communities. I commend the work being done by the not-for-profit organisation, Pub is the Hub, in this regard. It is crucial that the pubs code should work for everyone as the effective measure it set out to be and was expected to be.

This brings me to the points raised by hon. Members on the role of the Pubs Code Adjudicator. There have certainly been raised tensions in the debate over the appointment of Mr Newby as the PCA. As I have said, I welcome the points that hon. Members have made about the perceived conflict of interest issues surrounding Mr Newby’s former employer. I urge the Minister to look into the recommendations of the Select Committee, particularly those relating to the perceived conflict of interest and to Mr Newby’s shareholdings and the loan issues that have been raised today.

In my view, we should not hide away from serious concerns such as these. The Government must ensure that the role of the Pubs Code Adjudicator is truly impartial and independent, so that the pub tenants whom the pubs code is there to serve can be satisfied with the work being done. That is clearly not the case at the moment, as the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway pointed out. Only in this way will we ensure a fair and proper process and a focus on the real and important issues. I urge the Government to examine the role of the Pubs Code Adjudicator and to explore options that will increase transparency and fairness.

Over the past couple of weeks, I have had many meetings with representatives of pub tenant groups and of the larger pubcos. In all those meetings, there were recurring themes that appeared to unite all the stakeholders, one of which was business rates. We must focus on the issues that act as barriers towards a thriving pub industry. The pub is a long-established part of British life, and a visit to a pub is now No. 3 on the list of things to do for tourists coming to the UK. We must do everything we can to ensure that that continues.

The pubs code is there to help local pub tenants to get a fair deal when negotiating with the large pubcos, but we have already heard today that some in the industry are unconvinced that it is working for them. I strongly urge the Government to do what they can to ensure that the pubs code is properly implemented for everyone, but in particular for the tied tenants who have long campaigned for fair negotiations. Also, it is only fair to Mr Paul Newby that the Minister should review the way in which he was appointed and the matters that have arisen from this debate and from the Select Committee, so that we can move on and make progress towards ensuring that the pubs code is properly implemented and that everyone has confidence that it can work in the way that it was meant to do.

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

Gill Furniss Excerpts

Wednesday 25th January 2017 General Committees

[Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I, too, declare that I am a proud member of the GMB. As the Minister has said, the regulations set a transition period of 12 months, beginning on 1 March 2017. The Trade Union Act regulations affecting new members of trade unions that have political funds will then come into effect on 1 March 2018.

The Trade Union Act is a partisan, poorly drafted and divisive piece of legislation that puts to bed any notion that the Government are acting for working people across the UK. It is a threat to political activity and campaigning by trade unions. It is a direct and deliberate threat to the Labour party’s funding from affiliated trade unions, while Tory funding sources are left untouched, and breaks the well-established consensus on the issue.

The manner in which the regulations have been consulted on and drafted is entirely consistent with the Government’s approach to date. They initially proposed a transition period of 12 weeks—[Interruption.]

[The Chair]

Order. The shadow Minister should be listened to in silence.

[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 ---

[Gill Furniss]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

Several unions, including USDAW, have set out their response to the BEIS consultation, conducted in August 2016, and to the certification officer’s consultation on the new models, conducted on 22 November 2016. The latest they needed to receive the final model rules from the certification officer in time to make a rule change in a 2017 conference was by 6 January 2017. Those rules were not received from the certification officer until Monday 16 January, and therefore it is not possible for the unions to make the rule changes until April or May 2018.

The Government’s summary of unions’ responses to the August consultation even states:

“A number of Unions said they have conferences scheduled for April/May 2018.”

That is where rule changes can be made, which is a different procedure, so why are the Government rushing to implement the legislation on 1 March 2018, just weeks before unions are due to hold their conferences to change their rules to comply?

[Chris Stephens]

Is there not another practical application? Under the proposed changes to the check-off arrangements, trade unions will have to discuss with employers an increase in subscriptions to comply with the terms of legislation, but the required statutory instrument has still not come before the House.

[Gill Furniss]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. As a result of that legislation, unions will need to renegotiate check-off arrangements with hundreds, and in some cases thousands, of employers across the public and private sector. According to the recently issued model rules, securing approval from the certification officer alone could take up to five weeks.

[Ms Eagle]

Does my hon. Friend agree that trying to change the rules for trade unions by a non-usual route, as suggested by the Minister—allowing rule changes by a secondary route to that which is normally allowed—to comply with these wholly irresponsible regulations creates the potential for real burdens to be placed on how unions operate internally? Does she also agree that unions’ rulebooks are an important part of how they operate their internal democracy and ensure their stability as they move forward as organisations? Is there any other civic society organisation that the Government have decided to treat in that way?

[Gill Furniss]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The rulebook is there for the benefit of everybody—employers and members—and it is a well-trodden path that has always succeeded. I ask the Minister whether there is another example of anyone in civic society who has been treated in this way. That would be an interesting concept.

[Christian Matheson]

I can answer my hon. Friend’s question. There are other elements of civil society that the Government are treating in this way: charities and campaign groups. The Government have cut their funding and restricted their campaigning activities so that they do not attack the Government.

[Gill Furniss]

I think there may be some merit in that point.

I will make some progress now. Let us be clear: the Trade Union Act is the most significant, sustained and partisan attack on ordinary workers in a generation, and the fact that the Government claim that it will increase fairness for trade unions and workers, while forcing them to act against their own democratic processes and principles by rushing through these changes, once again reveals the hypocrisy.

Will the Minister concede that the Government have been hasty in their approach to implementing the Act at the potential expense of trade unions and workers? Will they extend the transition period—which, for the reasons we have already outlined, is insufficient—by at least six months, so that legislation can be followed and trade union rules, processes and democratic principles properly respected?

For all the reasons I have laid out, I am afraid I cannot support the draft regulations and we wish to divide the Committee on the matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Margot James]

I am not going to proceed down that path at this point. As required by the Act, we have consulted and sought views on the length of the transition period.

[Gill Furniss]

rose—

[Margot James]

Sorry, I am not going to give way again; I have been very generous. [Interruption.] As it is the shadow Minister, I will give way, but for the last time.

[Gill Furniss]

Will the Minister take on board what the right hon. Member for West Dorset said and give us some flexibility in implementing the transition? She seems to have indicated that she may look at that, but it would be good to put on the record whether that will occur.

[Margot James]

I can only repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Glasgow South West. I am not going to repeat myself again. The regulations implement the Act’s provisions by providing for a 12-month transition period. We have taken a proportionate approach on the political funds opt-in transition.