Chuka Umunna
Main Page: Chuka Umunna (Liberal Democrat - Streatham)Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill
Chuka Umunna Excerpts
Jo Swinson
I understand what the right hon. Gentleman says; we may have to agree to disagree on this matter. He is absolutely right to highlight the fact that we are dealing with people’s homes, which is why this measure is so important. Incidentally, it is also something that his party did not see fit to introduce in 13 years in government. This Government are righting the situation by making amendments to ensure that there is a redress scheme. Indeed, when the Lords amendment we are discussing was introduced in the other place, that is the argument that was made and that is what was said was most important. I agree that a redress scheme is important to ensure that where there is a problem, tenants can have an avenue for redress.
Indeed, such a scheme has two functions, because it is not just about ensuring that when somebody has a problem, they can get redress. The very fact that agents have to sign up to redress schemes is in itself a driver of behaviour to ensure less wrongdoing in the first place. More widely, residential leasehold matters are being taken forward separately by the Department for Communities and Local Government in the round tables it is conducting. The noble Lady Baroness Gardner of Parkes raised that issue in the other place.
I hope I have been able to outline the Government’s position on the Lords amendments and provide some reassurance to Members of this House.
Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)
It is good to see you back in your place, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Before I turn to the four issues covered by this group of amendments, it is worth revisiting the supposed purpose of the Bill. It is supposed to be an enterprise Bill that will generate growth. It was referred to as a Christmas tree of a Bill when it left us, but it has since become something of a forest.
Let me deal with each of the four issues in turn. The first is the Government’s move to repeal the general duty for the Equality and Human Rights Commission contained in section 3 of the Equality Act 2006. The Lords wished to reverse the Government’s move to repeal section 3 of the 2006 Act and we agree with them. The general duty sets out the mission and vision of the commission. It is worth repeating that duty, which is for the commission to encourage and support
“the development of a society in which…people’s ability to achieve their potential is not limited by prejudice or discrimination…there is respect for and protection of each individual’s human rights…there is respect for the dignity and worth of each individual…each individual has an equal opportunity to participate in society, and…there is mutual respect between groups based on understanding and valuing of diversity…equality and human rights.”
The Government wish to repeal all of that as part of their red tape challenge, on the basis that it is a
“vague, unnecessary and obsolete provision from the Equality Act 2006”,
as the Minister put it in her letter to me yesterday. I could not disagree with her more.
I made the point on Report that this is not red tape. Vision and mission are important. The reason that the Government have failed on all manner of fronts is that they lack vision and mission. As Baroness Campbell, who sponsored the amendment in the Lords, said, the duty imports the cultural and ethical principles of equality and human rights into the commission’s remit. It makes it clear that the commission is there not just to enforce rules but to change culture.
Personally, I believe that we as a country have made a great deal of progress in this regard since I grew up here and since members of my family arrived here from abroad. However, Baroness Campbell also said:
“We would not wish to risk slipping back to the time before the Stephen Lawrence inquiry, but if Section 3 goes and the equality duty is weakened or lost shortly after, I feel that is precisely where we will be heading.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 March 2013; Vol. 743, c. 1278.]
Indeed, Doreen Lawrence has resolutely opposed the removal of section 3. Baroness Campbell enjoyed overwhelming support from most of the others who spoke on this issue in the Lords, and numerous others outside Parliament have objected to the repeal, fearing that the changes will result in a much weaker body. Those who have objected include Justice, the Fawcett Society, Mind, the Refugee Council and the Equality Trust.
Having listened to the arguments on this matter in both Houses and outside Parliament, the commission itself has now said that unless the Government can provide additional robust reasons for removing the general duty—which they have not done—the case for removing the Lords amendments in the Commons will not have been made. The commission therefore continues to support the retention of the general duty and the maintenance of the position established by the Lords. I put it to the Minister that if the commission is content to support the retention of the duty—which is doing no harm; indeed, it is doing quite the opposite—why does she think that she knows better?
Let us not forget that the Government are not only seeking to water down the commission’s remit; they have also cut its budget by more than 60%. The cut was so great that the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights was moved to write to the Government in June and July last year to express concerns.
Julian Smith
How does the shadow Secretary of State account for the evidence given by John Wadham, the chair of the commission, when he appeared before the Committee? He stated:
“I do not think that it is so problematic, because other parts of the legislation provide sufficient clarity on what our job really is.”––[Official Report, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Public Bill Committee, 19 June 2012; c. 79.]
How does the hon. Gentleman account for the chair of the organisation—[Interruption.] How does he account for a board member of the organisation saying that in Parliament, yet now doing a flip-flop? Which is true? What does the organisation believe, and what does the hon. Gentleman’s party believe?
Mr Umunna
With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, our party has made it very clear what we believe. Mr Wadham can speak for himself, but I must first point out that he is not the chair of the organisation. Secondly, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has made it clear that it has changed its position on this matter. Thirdly, we are hardly going to find a senior member of an agency such as the commission seeking to have a public row with its Minister. However, I think we all know exactly what people in the commission think. I was told that the last time we discussed this matter in the House, Opposition Members were being cheered on by employees of the commission who were watching the debate. I am sure that they are watching this debate right now, and that they will have listened with interest to what the hon. Gentleman has just said.
The Minister should also reflect on what the majority of her party’s members think about this issue. They cannot fathom why she and the Business Secretary are making all these changes to people’s rights at work, to the role of the commission and so on. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), the shadow Minister for employment relations, has told me about his trip to the Liberal Democrats’ spring conference last month. He spoke at a fringe meeting on employment rights—I did not know he was going to do that—at which the Minister tried to justify all these changes. My understanding is that people walked out of that room in disgust at the measures that she is trying to push through today. I have, of course, castigated my hon. Friend for forgetting to take Labour party membership forms with him to dish out; he will take a big box of them next time. We support the Lords amendments in this respect.
Let me turn now to deal with caste discrimination, a matter that has attracted considerable interest outside this House. Labour has a proud history of tackling injustice and discrimination. We believe that people should be able to make the most of their potential opportunities—whatever their race, gender, family background or social circumstances. In recent months, organisations such as the Anti-caste Discrimination Alliance have campaigned for stronger action to tackle caste discrimination, and their case has been powerful. Every community group and every faith group to which we have spoken—on either side of the debate in recent days—has been united in the belief that caste discrimination has no place in our country.
We Labour Members thus believe that we must send a strong and clear message today—that caste discrimination is completely unacceptable, and that we support taking more action. That is why we will support the amendment. We need to do more to ensure that the small number of people who face such injustice have access to the redress they deserve and have somewhere to turn to for support.
It is fair to say, however, that some have raised legitimate concerns about the practicalities of how the legislation would work—about its drafting and implementation. We take those practical points seriously and we agree that any new action we take must over time reduce rather than increase the number of people being identified by their caste, eliminating discrimination in the future.
Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman and I think all of us are united in believing that any form of discrimination—caste or any other form—is entirely wrong. It is interesting to reflect that the hon. Gentleman is talking about this issue in 2013, yet the Labour party was in power—I know he was not here then—for 13 years. Did this issue not come up at any time over 13 years and, if so, why did the Labour party not bring forward any proposals at the time? It should welcome the fact that this Government are the first to put forward an education programme to deal with the issue.
Mr Umunna
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but we sought to deal with the issue through the Equality Act 2010 and then by providing for further action to be taken thereafter. It is not fair for him to say that we took insufficient action during our time in government: we needed to allow time for the communities concerned to adjust and to provide an opportunity for the education which he talks about. Despite the time that has passed—the Act was passed back in 2010—it is clear that more still needs to happen.
We do not believe that the Government are doing enough on this issue, which is part of the reason why we will vote against the Government’s motion to disagree with the Lords amendment. I hope that further discussions can take place here about the implementation of action against caste discrimination before the matter is discussed again in the other place. People on both sides of the debate have said loudly and clearly that they would like far more consultation on the subject. We hope that that can happen. The goal—the place where we all want to be—is to reach agreement on a way forward over the next few days before the provisions arrive back in the House of Lords.
Mr Umunna
I will move on, because we are short of time and I want to ensure that others can come into the debate.
I shall move on to deal with health and safety. Clause 61, to which Lords amendments 38 and 39 apply, is designed to remove civil liability for breaches of duty imposed by health and safety regulations. In so doing, it overturns an accepted and established health and safety regime that has been on the statute book for a very long time—for over a century. What the Government are seeking to do is overturn legislation that has been in place since a ruling in 1898. The consequence of that is serious. The clause removes the existing and long-established right of an employee to rely on a breach of health and safety in any claims for personal injury. As was said in the other place, in respect of employer liability it will force injured employees to face
“a near impossible evidential burden.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 March 2013; Vol. 743, c. 1502.]
The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers has stated that the clause will favour negligent employers over those who take health and safety considerations seriously and who treat people with the care that they are due.
The Government have not been able to provide evidence on the matter to support legislative change. They justify their amendment by referring to a recommendation in Professor Löfstedt’s report “Reclaiming health and safety for all”, published in November 2011. However, Professor Löfstedt himself has expressed doubts about the Government’s plan. In his review of progress a year on from his report, he states:
“the proposed amendment to the Health and Safety at Work Act reverses the current position on civil liability. This means that, unless exceptions apply, claims for compensation in relation to breaches of health and safety legislation will need to prove that the employer has been negligent. The approach being taken is more far-reaching than I anticipated in my recommendation.”
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that as a result of the failure of cases that would otherwise have succeeded, people who have not received compensation will look to the statutory authorities for their rehabilitation—for their care, speech therapy and physiotherapy—and that that will effectively constitute the nationalisation of rehabilitation?
Mr Umunna
I do agree. I think that describing it as the nationalisation of rehabilitation is entirely appropriate. I know that my hon. Friend, whose practice advised people who were claiming for personal injury, speaks with the benefit of huge experience.
The Government declined to undertake the review that Professor Löfstedt recommended on the restriction of the number of situations in which strict liability would apply, saying that it would be too complex. The other place rightly voiced serious concerns about that. Lord McKenzie of Luton said:
“On the basis of the flimsiest of evidence, the opportunities for those injured at work to obtain redress are being substantially impaired. We should be very clear about that. This is not ‘business as usual’. The beneficiaries, of course, will be the providers of employer's liability insurance. The losers will include taxpayers because reduced compensation will mean reduced benefit recovery.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 March 2013; Vol. 743, c. 1504.]
In less than a fortnight it will be workers memorial day, and many ceremonies, involving many Members of Parliament, will take place around the country to remember men and women who have been injured or killed in the workplace. The current framework is accepted and well established, and has helped to prevent workplace deaths and injuries. I ask the Government to reflect on the debate and the vote in the other place, and to preserve the status quo in the interests of the appropriate balance of rights and responsibilities between employee and employer in keeping the employee safe at work. We support the Lords amendment in that context.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
I apologise for arriving late. I was at a meeting of the Backbench Business Committee.
My hon. Friend has just made an important point. This is not about compensation as such; it is about ensuring that employers introduce and abide by regulations that prevent accidents from happening in the first place because they are frightened of having to pay the compensation. That financial disincentive will drive employers to do the right thing in circumstances in which they might not otherwise have done so. This is not about people at work receiving money; it is about people at work not getting hurt and not getting killed.
Mr Umunna
I entirely agree. This is one of the aspects of the debate on health and safety that I find particularly frustrating. While we must of course retain a balance, we must also be clear about the fact that protecting people at work and keeping them safe is not a matter of red tape. It is a matter of safety at work.
Lords amendment 40, to which the Government have tabled their own amendment, relates to estate agents. It represents a welcome U-turn by the Government, who have backed Labour’s proposals to give greater protection to tenants and landlords by forcing letting agents to join a scheme to deal with complaints. It is a victory for tenants and landlords who rely on agents to rent, or care for, their property in a market described as the wild west by the industry itself.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the organisations across the sector who have worked with us to secure this change in position from the Government. Tenants and landlords have for too long had little protection, and have been bewildered as to why it has taken so long for the Government to recognise the need for change. Until this eleventh-hour U-turn, the Government seemed out of touch and isolated on this issue. It is good that they have changed position, recognising the need for a proper complaints system for all consumers. However, we are disappointed that the Government have not gone further, having rejected other parts of Baroness Hayter’s amendment.
John Healey
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that slight qualification, but he may be in danger of overstating the extent of the U-turn. There are growing problems of unjustified, unfair, upfront fees, misleading advertisements, repairs not being done and visits not being made. This is a step in the right direction, but it is a small step, and will prove insufficient to deal with a market that is not functioning properly and fairly in the interests of tenants or landlords.
Sir Peter Bottomley
The issue of caste was very well covered yesterday on the BBC’s “Newsnight” programme, and I hope the Government will take up the suggestion that there should be discussion over the next few days about how the points made can be incorporated into the aim to get fairness. My reaction on watching people describe what it was like to be told by someone junior to them that they should not take orders from them because of something that happened in their family past was that that was ludicrous.
Ghandi called the untouchables the children of God over 70 years ago—in the 1930s, I think—and we ought to find some way of picking that up and echoing it in our country.
I could speak on a number of issues, but I will stick to the issue of agents, and in particular leasehold managing agents. I hope that when the Select Committee looks at this, it will address not only the letting of residential tenancies but the 3 million leaseholds in this country, many of which are held by people who are old, frail and on fixed incomes. My hon. Friend the Minister may be right to say that the majority of managing agents behave well. In the past, however, many of them, and especially those who were associated with the freeholder, ripped off their leaseholders left, right and centre. Such agents are a minority, but they hold the majority of the responsibility for managing leasehold properties, and the faster they are brought out into transparency and openness, the better.
I pay tribute to the Minister for Housing. Through his efforts and the co-operation of his colleagues, the Government have come forward with a welcome initiative. I am not arguing it is completely right—I would be surprised if it were—but its 10 measures deal with a variety of issues, the most important of which is openness.
Having a redress scheme requires having a code. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has a good code, as do some of the associations of letting agents. This explains why most people have argued for licensing, which would include an ombudsman service and a redress system. As things stand, we are going to get the redress system, but we are not necessarily going to get the code.
I hope Ministers, either in this place or the other place, can assure the Houses of Parliament that they agree that having redress requires having a code, and that managing agents will not be able to practice if they have been struck off or cannot give adequate assurances that they meet the code and will abide by decisions if they are held to have offended against it.
Ordinary disputes are one thing. I ought to declare that I have an interest in a small leasehold flat—I am now a freeholder—and our managing agent and freeholder behaved impeccably with the six leaseholders. I have no complaint about that at all. I have taken advantage of the present system, but many people have not.
In Oakland court in my constituency, a group of really old people took action against their freeholder as they were being charged for a warden’s flat when there was no warden. Eventually, when they could get to the leasehold valuation tribunal, there was an effective judgment that would have given back to them—although sadly many of them had died—not only tens of thousands of pounds but possibly £100,000. Eventually, they came to a settlement and I pay tribute to the freeholders for doing that.
To have clever lawyers, some of whom will appear at LEASE—the Government-approved agency for giving advice on leaseholds—advise managing agents on what can be done with leaseholders within the law does not strike me as balanced. I ask the Government to ask LEASE to ensure that at least one of the two people I will name is invited to join its board. One is Sebastian O’Kelly, who runs the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, and the other is Martin Boyd.
Martin Boyd got involved because he was one of the leaseholders who took on the Tchenguiz brothers. It is not for me to get involved with whatever happened, right or wrong, with the Tchenguiz brothers, the action to which they were subject and the separate action that they are now taking—although I would have thought that a handshake and an apology would solve that. I am saying, however, that the Tchenguiz brothers do not have the best reputation for how they deal with leaseholders. Sometimes, they appear to charge rather high sums if someone wants to sublet a leasehold property and sometimes they want to sell it. A whole series of other issues should, I believe, be fully examined under parliamentary privilege.
It seems to me that officials in the Departments involved have had to work really hard to produce the five pages of new clauses that we are discussing, so I shall not add to their burdens by trying to go through them in detail.
The permanent secretaries at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Ministry of Justice have a responsibility to add to the numbers of people involved, because Parliament will ensure that the issue gets proper attention—not just the 9 million tenancies, but the 3 million leaseholders. That will require serious effort in Government and by Parliament and I hope that in time the injustices that are rampant will have evaporated, partly through transparency and partly through legislative action.
Let me give an example of transparency. I challenge every managing agent to tell every leaseholder now what commission the freeholder is getting on the insurance premiums to cover the value of the properties. Those commissions go up to 65%. In my view, they should not be more than about 5% or 10%. Let us get that out in the open, and we will get the rest of the muck out afterwards.
Alok Sharma
I will restrict my comments to the discussion of caste discrimination. As I said in my intervention on the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna), I think we can all agree that caste discrimination is wrong and abhorrent, as is any form of discrimination. I welcome the fact that the Government are making a real effort, taking the issue seriously and putting in place a programme of education.
I hope that the hon. Member for Streatham would agree that, before introducing legislation, we should ensure that there is an evidence base for doing so. As I am sure he will be aware, the NIESR report was incredibly comprehensive. As I understand it, NIESR approached CasteWatch UK and Voice of Dalit International and looked back at cases that were up to 10 years old, yet it came up with a relatively low volume of caste-related incidents. I have no wish to trivialise any of those incidents, and clearly they were incredibly hurtful to the individuals involved, but I will just make the point that, ultimately, if we are to introduce legislation, we need to ensure that there is a broad evidence base for doing so. I understand that 32 people were interviewed for the NIESR report and 23 were used as case studies. Those 23 people reported 36 separate caste-related incidents.
Mr Umunna
I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, but I want to ask him two questions. Does he accept that caste discrimination is going on and, if he does, does he agree that the fact that it might be quite restricted should not preclude us taking action to protect the small number who are subject to it?
Richard Fuller
I will speak in support of Lords amendment 37, which would provide people with legal protection against caste discrimination in the workplace.
I have listened intently to the debate. A number of speakers have said that this is a complex issue, including the Minister, the shadow Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma). I regard all those colleagues with great esteem, so I hope that they will forgive my saying that the idea that this is a complex issue is rubbish. This is a straightforward issue. Caste discrimination in the workplace is wrong and the people who suffer from it deserve legal protection. That is the beginning and end of the matter.
To help the Minister, who with the best of intentions has found herself on the wrong side of the argument, I will answer three questions that I expect this Government and the previous Government asked on this issue. Is there evidence of a problem of caste discrimination? Is legislation the best approach? Is a delay to implementation justified?
On whether there is evidence of a problem, I have received a petition signed by more than 300 of my constituents in Bedford and Kempston. I have received representations from the Valmiki community, the Ravidassia community and the Dr Ambedkar Mission Society in Bedford. Those who saw “Newsnight”—a current affairs programme on the BBC—will have seen, towards the end of the programme, personal testimonies from three of my constituents: Mr Ram Dhariwal, Mr Sam Kalyan and, most movingly, Mr Prithi Kaeley.
On behalf of those constituents and many others, I must say that I cannot see how people can argue that there is no evidence of a problem. Some may say that the studies by the Anti Caste Discrimination Alliance and the NIESR did not provide sufficient evidence. Those reports made me angry and made me cry. They made me feel that action on this issue was all the more important.
I repeat what I said to the Minister earlier on the evidence for a problem. She should listen to her colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), who said:
“The evidence is compelling—so hopefully the Government who said that they would consider any evidence coming forward will now bring forward their own amendment to include caste.”
We are not talking about caste discrimination in social or personal circumstances. However, I understand that when the Equality Act 2010 was debated, the then Solicitor-General accepted that the evidence showed that caste discrimination was prevalent in personal and social situations. I ask the Government, and in particular the Minister, whether we can rest comfortably on the assumption that discrimination that persists widely in personal and social situations will magically halt at the threshold to the shop floor or the door to the office. That is a hard position to take.
On whether legislation is the right approach, I say to the Government that Talk for a Change is an inappropriate and insufficient measure. The NIESR report advised that education would not be sufficient. I ask the Minister whether she would rest on education alone as the answer to racist or sexist behaviour in the workplace. If not, why should we rest on that alone in this case? On the basis of my constituents’ experiences, I disagree with the argument that caste discrimination is a diminishing issue. Does the Minister not see that the provision of education without the provision of legal remedy is the worst possible solution, because it raises knowledge but does not afford consequences for discriminatory actions?
The current laws do not provide sufficient protection for those who face caste discrimination. I draw the House’s attention to the judgment in the employment tribunal case of Naveed v. Chilli Pink in November 2011, which stated:
“We consider in the light of the above provisions”—
meaning section 9(5) of the Equality Act 2010—
“that the Claimant’s complaint of discrimination based on his caste was doomed to fail… First, no order has yet been made extending section 9 of the Equality Act 2010 so as to provide for caste to amount of itself to an aspect of race.”
The current situation is hostile to people who want to bring discrimination cases based on caste, and delay in that matter is serious.
Hon. Members have already said that we need legislation so that some of those cases can move forward. There was an important case recently. I will not talk about it specifically, but the impediments faced by the person trying to bring the case to justice in terms of understanding among the police of the issues involved, access to legal advice and legal aid, and the personal costs in such circumstances, would put anybody off doing so.
On whether a delay is justified, the EHRC’s position seems perverse—we heard earlier about its flip-flops on other issues. Yesterday, the policy statement on its website stated:
“The Equality and Human Rights Commission supports the enactment of Section 9 (5) of the Equality Act 2010”,
yet after being given this job by the Government, it recently stated:
“What is clear is that caste is an extremely complex area,”.
I would be interested to hear from the Government—perhaps the Minister will respond—whether the EHRC is researching this issue or looking at ways in which companies could move forward with rules on implementation should the Government enact this measure. Would it be possible for the EHRC to bring cases to court or support cases going through the courts?
I tried to intervene earlier on the shadow Secretary of State because I want to be absolutely clear about the position of the Labour party on this issue, and specifically on whether it would like this measure on caste to be enacted. That was not clear from what the shadow Secretary of State said because he also talked about consultation and other things. It would be helpful to have clarification on that. I argue that whether or not the issue of caste is diminishing over time—that may or may not be true—is not material. Discrimination today deserves remedy today. It is no good telling people that we can sort the issue out and that their grandchildren and great grandchildren will be fine. We need a remedy today.
Mr Umunna
I am conscious that I shall not get the chance to intervene again. The Labour party’s position is clear: more needs to be done and if we are to do more in legislation, further consultation must be carried out and the issue must be looked at properly. That is why we support the amendment so that it can go back to the Lords and we can have a discussion about how to get more consultation and how agreement can be reached. We are clear that more needs to be done and I remind the hon. Gentleman that we touched on this issue in the Equality Act 2010, although we did not bring into force by order the inclusion of caste in the definition of race in that Act. However, the fact that we addressed the issue in that Act shows we were alive to it. As he and I know, practically implementing such measures in a way that does not lead to a plethora of litigation is something of which we must all be mindful.
Richard Fuller
If I can hear that as a clarification—I do not wish to misstate what I heard—the position of the shadow Secretary of State and the Labour party is precisely the same as that of the Government on the key issue of whether it is abundantly clear that discrimination based on caste is wrong, and that we should enact the relevant measure today. The hon. Gentleman’s answer is “Let’s have more time; let’s do more consultation”, which is what I heard the Minister say. Perhaps I misheard.
Mr Umunna
There are two points. First, if our position was the same as that of the Government we would reject the Lords amendments. Secondly, we are clear that more needs to be done and we must look at legislation and at what measures to introduce. I cannot be clearer than that for the hon. Gentleman.
Richard Fuller
If I may say so, the hon. Gentleman could try a lot harder to be much clearer than that. I am not asking specifically about the amendment but about the provision in the Bill that the people who campaigned hard on this issue want to see. I believe their expectation is that the Labour party will support that provision, but I am hearing that it does not yet support it.