Musical Instrument Certificates
Debate between Lord Brennan of Canton and Baroness Hayman of Ullock(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We are continuing to talk with DCMS; it is an ongoing conversation. We are also continuing to constructively engage with the European Commission to tackle the challenges that face both creative and cultural professionals. To support touring artists, the Government are actively engaging with the EU on this specific issue. At the first ever summit between the UK and the EU, both sides recognised the value of travel and cultural and artistic exchanges, including the activities of touring artists, and we have committed to continue to support this.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Musicians’ Union, led by the excellent general secretary Naomi Pohl, which has been campaigning against this proposal. In my view, it is the sort of proposal that in a joined-up government should never have seen the light of day. Musicians and orchestras are facing great difficulties as a result of Brexit and already have additional costs. There is no current charge; the Minister is right in saying that. The difference is that now, if the Government introduce a charge, it will place a massive additional burden on musicians who are already suffering greatly in terms of being able to tour as a result of Brexit. I understand why she has to say in legal terms that the consultation is going ahead, but when it is over, I urge her to drop this proposal.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As my noble friend rightly pointed out, this is an ongoing consultation. As I said in response to other questions, we will take all views into account. The consultation does not close for another few days, so if anyone has concerns and they have not taken part, I urge them to respond.
Enterprise Bill [Lords]
Debate between Lord Brennan of Canton and Baroness Hayman of Ullock
Kevin Brennan
I thank the hon. Lady for promoting me temporarily. I agree with her, and I know that she has been campaigning on that issue, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), who we may hear from later. She is absolutely right. The employees of these companies would never have imagined for one second that they would be hit by the Government’s proposals and the Conservative manifesto commitment to cap public sector exit payments. We raised the issue in Committee, but the Minister refused to guarantee that they would be excluded from the exit payment cap.
The companies listed are in a unique position. They are mostly engaged in managing the safe closure of nuclear facilities, which is a task of huge national importance. By its very nature, it involves working towards a specific end date, at which point the employees will effectively make themselves redundant, provided that they have done a good job. That is what they are doing: they are working to make themselves redundant.
Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is completely inconsistent to include employees of companies operated by the private sector? My constituents who work at Sellafield are very worried about the proposed redundancy cap. I am concerned that it will lead to highly skilled, experienced workers leaving the industry, which would undermine our ability to deliver the safe decommissioning of our nuclear facilities.
Kevin Brennan
I agree. My hon. Friend will have noticed that Sellafield Ltd is included in new schedule 1, for the very reason she has highlighted.
As I said, the workers in question are working towards making themselves redundant. They accept that their work is a task and finish activity of national importance. In order to get somebody with the necessary skills to commit to that kind of proposition in their early or mid-30s, we need to ensure that they know that they will be provided for if they successfully complete their task by the time they reach their mid to late 50s, when they might find it extremely difficult to find re-employment, given their very specific skills.
If the companies listed cannot afford the packages necessary to compensate someone for the loss of their role when their task has been completed, they will find it extremely difficult to prevent highly skilled workers, who are mobile in the earlier parts of their careers, from leaving. That in itself will drive up costs for the nuclear decommissioning industry and exacerbate an already difficult skills shortage in the sector.
Legislating now to override the long-standing arrangements in the nuclear industry, as the Government are doing, when employers have kept their end of the bargain faithfully, is, to be frank, unconscionable. How can it be right that workers who have stayed with a company to deliver successfully the safe decommissioning of a site see the Government renege on their promised redundancy compensation when it is due to be paid?