Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Wednesday 8th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Ben Gummer]

Although list X is the responsibility of the MOD and the Secretary of State will have heard that question, I have a responsibility for small and medium-sized enterprises in public procurement. I shall certainly take forward my hon. Friend’s concerns and ensure that they are represented.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Since 2010, more than 100,000 civil service jobs have gone. With 300 new recruits and funding of £42.7 million for the Brexit Department, is the Minister really serious about the fact that the UK is properly prepared to enter the most complex negotiations for generations? The reality is that it is an absolute shambles.

[Ben Gummer]

I have full confidence not only in that, but in the civil service and the remarkable people who inhabit the Departments across our state.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Wednesday 14th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Ben Gummer]

We are. It would not be for me to add to the words of the director general of the Secret Intelligence Service, but it is important that we protect the integrity of our democracy. My hon. Friend can be assured that all agencies in this country are apprised of the necessity of doing precisely that.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

In the light of the Russian intervention in the US election and the credible threats to the German election recognised by Chancellor Merkel, will the Minister give the House a guarantee that no cyber-attacks have been carried out on the UK that could have impacted on our democracy? Will he also inform the House what measures, in addition to the cyber-security strategy, his Government will be implementing to defend the UK from such attacks in the future?

[Ben Gummer]

I am gratified by the fact that the Electoral Commission says that our register is one of the most accurate and secure in the world, but we clearly need to protect the entire integrity of the democratic process. That is why all security agencies will be making sure that our systems are as secure as possible. I am grateful to the people working in the National Cyber Security Centre for the work they do—a lot of it is very difficult and technical—which is why we are better protected than most countries around the world. I intend to make sure that that capability and capacity improve and increase.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Chris Skidmore]

In terms of local government suffrage, EU citizens can already vote. For parliamentary suffrage, we are extending the franchise, as my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) rightly says, to an extra 3.7 million Brits abroad. When it comes to the question of those living in this country, obviously that is subject to future negotiations.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

At a time when the Government are failing in any serious way to address the democratic deficit in the UK, they are, as has been mentioned, pursuing plans to remove the 15-year time limit for overseas voters and to hand a vote for life to an estimated 1 million expats. Will the Minister explain how that might affect Electoral Commission guidelines on “permissible donors”, and will he assure the House that under no circumstances will the proposed changes allow unlimited political financial donations from non-UK taxpayers abroad to be funnelled into the coffers of any UK political party?

[Chris Skidmore]

First, may I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place? It is great to see him across the Dispatch Box.

On the issue of overseas electors and ensuring that those living abroad for more than 15 years have a vote for life, the principle is clear: we must ensure that those who were born in this country, who have often paid tax in this country and have moved abroad are given a right to participate in our democracy. These include people such as Harry Shindler, a Labour voter who fought in world war two. We want to ensure that these people who have given something to our country are allowed to participate in our democracy.

Citizens Convention on Democracy

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2016 Westminster Hall

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. It is also a pleasure to respond to this important debate on behalf of the Opposition. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) on securing it. As he said, it is difficult to enthuse and inspire people by trying to develop a better place for democracy. I pay tribute to him for pursuing this topic with tenacity and for recognising how important it is that we build a new consensus on the relationship between the people and the state and within the nations themselves.

The breadth of cross-party support for the initiative—from Labour’s leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), to the Lib Dems, the Greens and some Conservatives—reveals the depth of concern about the crisis that we currently face in our democracy. Fundamental questions remain on the health of that democracy. Between the people and the state, between the four nations and between people within the nations themselves, the vote to leave the European Union served to emphasise the depth of the divide within our country. The anger at the status quo, which first tore into mainstream political debate in the run-up to the Scottish referendum, was glaringly obvious to many of us long before. The signs were there in the ever-declining turnout at general elections, in the trust in previously respected institutions being destroyed by the recession and, perhaps most damningly of all, in the sense among many people that Governments do not care much about what ordinary people think. That is the crisis.

I am from a mining community on the great northern coalfield in the north-east. When I walk around and talk to people I have known for many years—people I have known all my life—they tell me that they feel that politicians do not have a clue about how they live their lives and about what is happening to their communities. Of course, as in the brutal decade of the 1980s, something more is happening. There is a sense that ordinary people in communities like mine in the north-east, like many across the UK, are simply being abandoned, with their views being a huge irrelevance to politicians.

[Caroline Lucas]

I apologise for being late to this debate. The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful point about why something that might sound dry—a citizens convention—actually goes to the heart of people’s identity and why it is an opportunity for them to get their voice heard in a debate that really matters to them. Does he agree that the convention has the potential to be a vibrant debate if we pitch it right?

[Ian Lavery]

I wholeheartedly agree that it is up to politicians, who have the job and the opportunity, to try to inspire people and give them the opportunity to have a say. People feel completely and utterly disfranchised. We have to rise to that huge challenge.

We are living in an age of insecurity and inequality. The further people seem to be from Westminster, the more likely they are to feel ignored. People in my constituency are trapped between Scotland and Tyneside —it certainly feels that way—which is why the radical redistribution of power that the citizens convention and other radical devolution agendas envisage is so vital to the health of our democracy. The evidence suggests that local communities want to feel more engaged in the decisions that affect their lives, and giving them that power will bring them into the democratic process. Again, it is up to us, as politicians, to ensure that that happens.

Under the new Prime Minister, following the exit of the previous Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), the already unambitious northern powerhouse looks likely to fall even further down the list of priorities in the north. Regions that have been chronically underfunded for decades were given a pitiful settlement by the Treasury and are expected to be grateful. The funding settlement does not even begin to offset the drastic spending cuts at local authority level. The Government are giving with one hand and taking away with the other. The North East Combined Authority, for instance, has £30 million a year to spend for each of the next 30 years. Considering that in the past five years alone there have been more than £1 billion of cuts to local authorities covering the area, with more to come in the next four years, I can see why the Government’s devolution agenda is being met with complete scepticism up north.

It might be asked what that has to do with the convention. The reality is that people cannot connect with the reasons for their lives being changed—with the cuts to services, for example—and they want to change things. The only way they can change things is by becoming part of the democratic process, so the convention is joined up with funding, austerity and the many things that are currently happening in the UK. With so much of the national agenda being driven not from town halls but from Whitehall and this place, it is little surprise that people seem disfranchised. Previously, more than 90% of civil servants in the Departments responsible for the northern powerhouse worked in London. That was raised many, many times on the doorstep. We talk about the northern powerhouse, but it is now normally called the northern poorhouse, which is probably more accurate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North has written many articles on the idea of the citizens convention, and everyone thinks that, to change things for the better, it is up to us to engage with communities on what they want. It is up to us to present alternatives such as a progressive devolution settlement to engage people in the democratic process. That is why, rather than relying on Westminster to put something in our begging bowl, it is vital that we see radical devolution of real power down to communities, which know best how to use it.

The real question is the question of power. To paraphrase my late friend Tony Benn, who has power and how are they using it? A power imbalance in the country has led to rising inequality over three decades or more. It has led to communities first being attacked, then being ignored and then being completely neglected by Westminster, which means that, despite the economy adding £4.3 trillion of wealth in recent years, GDP per capita has all but flatlined, household savings are at their lowest level since 1963 and household debt is at its highest since just before the crash. In other words, the proceeds of growth are not being shared, which is fundamentally because power is not being shared. Power can be reintroduced through citizens’ assemblies and constitutional conventions, which is why I say that power is the most important issue we are discussing today. Half the people of this country feel that the Government do not care much or at all about what people like them think—that is an unequal access to power and we see the consequences of it in the real economy. What communities who have lost faith in Westminster to deliver for them need above all else is real power to transform their lives. That real power, or at least part of it, comes from the citizens assemblies and the citizens constitutions.

If the northern revival is to take root, it must take us away from an economy dominated by the City of London and from a politics dominated by Westminster, in which London can simply click its fingers and get a £32 billion Crossrail 2 project delivered. That is fine, but in constituencies like mine at the other end of the spectrum, away from Westminster, we have rail tracks but not trains. We are even looking to fund passenger trains to run through Ashington or Bedlington, which we have not had for 50 years. Giving people the power—giving them democracy—allows different things to happen in the communities we are all proud to serve.

We need control over the areas where we have lagged behind, such as energy, internet services and transport. In constituencies up and down this country—in mine, for example, there are fewer business start-ups than in most other English regions and pay is some £200 per week behind London—we need the power to change our economy for the better. We need the power to respond to problems that are particularly profound in our own areas. That would be an advantage of citizens assemblies. We should have the funds to invest properly in skills and innovation and to link the fantastic work of the colleges and universities, but we should also be able to insist that, if we are all to have a stake in the future of this country and in the devolution agenda, we will do things differently: workers’ rights will be properly respected and everyone must share in the growth of our areas, and no one should be left behind.

I therefore absolutely commend the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North to address that inequality of power through the constitutional process and through an attempt to engage the millions of citizens who want a more direct stake in their own future and in the future of their communities, and who are never asked what they think except for every five years when a general election is looming.

That is partly about what the structures of the UK will look like, but it is about much more: the revival of our communities, the health of our democracy and the future of our nation. We are strongest when we work together. Discussions with people about their communities, as well as with experts, trade unions and other stakeholders, will bring people together and create a collective vision for the future that genuinely benefits the people, rather than just paying lip service to democracy.

In 2014, under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), the Labour party agreed totally with a citizens charter and committed itself in principle to having one. The Labour party position is reaffirmed here in the House today. I ask the Minister at least to confirm that the Government will give due consideration to a wider, more diverse and inclusive democratic process, initially by agreeing in principle to a citizens convention.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2015 Commons Chamber

[John Penrose]

One of the benefits of individual electoral registration is that it has a built-in check for validity, which dramatically improves the quality of registers as a result. As more and more of the roll is completed using individual electoral registration, we expect it to have a beneficial effect in weeding out people who are incorrectly registered in the way that my hon. Friend describes.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

10. Since March 2014, there has been a reduction in young people about to turn 18 registering to vote. Will the Minister not commit the Government to rolling out the Northern Ireland schools initiative, so that schools and colleges can work with local authorities to make sure that those people register to vote?

[John Penrose]

A number of interesting initiatives are under way to persuade and allow students to vote. Some interesting examples are going on in Sheffield. So there are a range of possibilities, many of which are very promising. We want to ensure that we have analysed them all properly, so that we can choose the best and most cost-effective.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Maude]

The right hon. Gentleman and I have discussed that in the Chamber before, and I completely understand his concern, particularly about the shared service staff in Alnwick. The machinery is not always as simple as it might be, but there is more that we can and should do to ensure that jobs are located in places where they can be undertaken efficiently and effectively with good results for the taxpayer and the citizen.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

2. What progress his Department has made on releasing outstanding documents relating to the miners dispute in 1984-85.

[The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)]

The documents, other than sensitive or personal papers, were released in the usual way under the law that was passed by the previous Government.

[Ian Lavery]

What have this Government got to hide with regard to the miners strike, because only 30 out of 500 digitised documents relating to the strike were released last week? There was no mention of Orgreave, but there was an admission that the Government tapped National Union of Mineworkers members’ phones. When will the documents that have not been released be released, and will they be released unredacted?

[Mr Maude]

I really have nothing to add to what I have already said and what has been said on previous occasions. The same considerations were applied to these papers as apply to the release of Government papers generally, which means that those that are personal or sensitive are not released in the normal time scales. I know that there are very strong feelings about this. I was a Member of Parliament for a coal mining constituency during the mining strike, and the mining community was deeply divided during that period. I am well aware of the sensitivities of that period.

Food Banks

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Luciana Berger]

I have been asked not to, because other Members wish to speak.

A family in my constituency have been waiting since August to get their tax credit application processed, and they are having to live on food bank vouchers because they have nothing to eat at home. I pay tribute to James Sloan and those at Central Liverpool food bank who do such an excellent job in providing people with support, and the volunteers who give their time to collect food, the people who donate very generously—in Liverpool, we have had one of the most generous supermarket collections anywhere across the country—and the people who give their time to listen and to provide a cup of tea.

However, I reiterate that we should not need those volunteers. We should not need the hundreds of food banks. We should not have 1 million people having to access emergency food aid. It is a disgrace that over 23,000 people—

Tributes to Tony Benn

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Last week was a really sad, bad week. It started with the sad loss of a great comrade and great friend of Tony Benn’s, Bob Crow. Tony sadly passed on, and just at the weekend so did another close friend of his, Stan Pearce, a man who worked hard in north-east England as a miner. It was a really bad, sad week for lots of people with regard to untimely departures.

Tony was fond of saying that Labour MPs normally started on the left and ended up in the Lords, while he took the opposite path in his political career. I first knew Tony when I was a young miner. I was 19 years of age in 1984 in the lead-up to and during the miners’ strike, and he was such an inspiration. I have heard lots of Members speak today, and most have said, “Tony was a great man although we did not agree with a lot of what he said.” I am probably the only one who will say that I agreed with most of what he said, and he was a tremendous inspiration to me. The support he gave to the miners has been mentioned in many contributions, but his support for the working class and people in dispute was absolutely fantastic and unswerving.

Tony Benn became very friendly with me, my wife and my kids as well. I knew Tony personally and he was a really good friend and comrade. He was somebody who I began to have a great liking for many years ago, and when anybody asks me, as an MP or a trade unionist, who my inspirations were in life, Tony would certainly be No. 1—perhaps No. 2, depending on what my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) had said in Parliament the previous week.

Tony Benn was a brilliant, fantastic orator and he could change people’s minds—at least for the time they were in the room anyway. It is a shame that people did not take Tony’s views away from the meetings he so eloquently addressed. He was a man of tremendous kindness, and that goes right through Tony’s family through his children. We used to be delighted if we could get Skinner or Benn or someone like that to the coalfield. We used to pack the halls to the rafters and enjoy every single moment. We admired them so much, and they oozed a natural presence. We wanted to be so much like them. Unfortunately, I have not in any way achieved anything like that at this point in time. They were dark days in the mining communities, but Benn was there and he made sure that people were revitalised and back up for the battle.

He had a tremendous affinity for the north-east. He was a major speaker at the biggest trade union gathering in Europe, the Durham Miners’ Gala, on more than 20 occasions—more than anyone else, perhaps other than my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover. He spoke at all the events. He understood the culture of the work force of the north-east, and he understood the traditions and the culture of the people of the north-east. He was a personal inspiration. Quite simply, Tony Benn was a legend and a giant among men.

I read with great affection an article written in the moderate Morning Star only this week by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) about when they put up a plaque for Emily Wilding Davison in a broom cupboard in the Crypt. The connection there, of course, is that Emily Wilding Davison was from my constituency all those years ago. It is amazing to think of Tony and Jeremy hiding with a drill in the broom cupboard in the Crypt screwing the plaque behind the door, but it was worthy of Tony’s belief in fighting with every fibre of his being for equality and against injustice. Miners, trade unionists and workers across the globe have had their lives enriched by just knowing Tony and understanding the support that he gave them. Together, we all pass on our condolences and sympathy to Tony’s family. We understand how much of a family man Tony was and how much he loved his family.

I conclude with the great song of days gone by: simply the best. He was, perhaps, better than all the rest.

Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

A number of people have said that there must be a good business case for the transatlantic trade and investment partnership. I think that we need much more than a good business case. I am concerned that there are huge inherent dangers in the TTIP for many working people and for public services in the UK. My major concern is that the trade agreement has the potential to dilute workers’ rights.

The hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) said twice that people are scaremongering with regard to the TTIP. He must not mix up scaremongering with people taking a different view from him.

There are two major problems with the TTIP. The first is labour rights and the second is investor-state dispute settlement, which we have discussed a lot this afternoon. I listened carefully to the Minister. He said, basically, that ISDS is ineffective. If it is ineffective and has not been used as much as everybody thinks it has, why is it in the agreement at all? That is a simple question. Why do we have ISDS if we do not need it?

The proposal is that the TTIP would establish in law the right of multinational corporations to sue nation states in a special court through investor-state dispute settlement if the nation’s regulatory framework is deemed to be a barrier to free trade. Of course that is concerning. It should concern everyone in this House. ISDS is a one-way street by which corporations can challenge Government policies, but neither Governments nor individuals are granted comparable rights to hold corporations accountable. Opinions suggest that these clauses could thwart attempts by a future Government to bring a health service back towards public ownership—again, that issue has been discussed at great length today.

It has been said time and again that there are major concerns about the impact the TTIP could have on the future of the NHS, and on the way the wider public sector is organised in the UK. There should have been a clear exemption, particularly for the NHS but also for the public sector more widely, in the negotiated mandate agreed by the European Council. Given the implications of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 for the commissioning and organisation of health services in the UK, there is a clear danger that major private health care corporations will be looking for opportunities within any TTIP agreement to force further large-scale privatisation.

There is an additional danger in the proposed inclusion in any TTIP agreement of an ISDS. Both the EU and the USA have respected and strong legal systems, and there is no justification for creating a mechanism to allow corporations to bypass the usual legal process to launch expropriation litigation should a UK Government attempt to bring elements of the health service, or other parts of the public sector, back under direct public control.

Labour rights are also extremely important. As I think has been mentioned, the US has ratified only 14 of the 190 International Labour Organisation conventions —among the lowest in the world. It has ratified only two of the eight core conventions dealing with forced labour, child labour, freedom of association and discrimination. It has not ratified conventions 87 or 98, and is almost certainly in breach of both, according to the ILO freedom of association committee.

The Wall Street Journal is not a newspaper that I normally acquire in the morning, nor want to read, but on this occasion I read a report that stated:

“Congressional Republicans are only willing to agree TTIP if extending EU labour standards…to the US is ruled out in advance.”

It basically states that congressional Republicans will agree to a TTIP only if the extension of any workers’ rights is ruled out before the TTIP is agreed in its entirety. If that is the case, it will be interesting to see what the EU has to say. I would have thought we understood that discussions would take place without any preconditions, and if there are preconditions—if that is what the Republicans are saying—perhaps we in the UK have little to concern ourselves about.

Many of those in US unions see a labour chapter in the TTIP as potentially opening up a European-style social model and worker dialogue with employers, which in some parts of the USA I think would be seen as a huge advantage. That has been explained clearly by the Communication Workers of America and the United Steelworkers. Organisations that have been terribly supportive of a TTIP that would enhance labour rights within the framework include the American Federation of Labor and the Congress of Industrial Organizations. The American Federation of Labor has a loud, clear voice and a mandate of 11 million workers.

Deregulation Bill

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

I was on the Joint—or pre-legislative scrutiny—Committee, and it was quite evident that there has been a lack of consultation with the people who will be involved in the Bill’s multitude of changes to regulations.

The Committee wondered whether there would be much opposition to the Bill as a whole and whether it would go through Parliament without any difficulties. When we look at the variety and the wide range of what the clauses are about, we can see that the Bill may contain problems. It moves from health and safety to driving instructors, and from sellers of knitting yarn—nearly every speaker has mentioned them—to child trust fund transfers. It is a mishmash of clauses about regulations, but the reality is that each one is important to somebody: each of these pieces of legislation is there for some reason.

The Minister for Government Policy made light of the Bill, which I am not sure is right, because it embodies plenty of important issues. The Bill is a package of measures, so for it to get the consent of the House, there need to be big changes. He mentioned Charlie Chaplin and children’s liqueur chocolates, for example, but we have concerns about safety and health, and others that I will come on to. I have grave concerns about clause 1 on “Health and safety at work: general duty of self-employed persons”, and clause 2 on the “Removal of employment tribunals’ power to make wider recommendations”, as well as clauses 61 to 64 on the “Exercise of regulatory functions”.

Clause 1 is a particular concern, because it serves no purpose other than to confuse. The hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) said quite the opposite, but we are entitled to take different views. That is the sort of thing that the Bill will invoke. The clause will take those self-employed who pose no risk to others out of the scope of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 by restricting its coverage to a self-employed person

“who conducts an undertaking of a prescribed description”.

At this point, we are not even sure what the prescribed descriptions will be. They will be determined by the Secretary of State in regulations. The clause is therefore problematic because we are not sure what the regulations will say or mean.

[Mr Letwin]

Just to clarify, we have almost completed discussing that matter, and by the time the Bill is considered in Committee, we will have brought forward the full descriptions of the activities that are exempt.

[Ian Lavery]

It is good news that, at least in Committee, people will have a much clearer understanding of the descriptions.

It is not fair to say that there is no problem in relation to the safety and health of self-employed people. Fatality rates among self-employed people are 1.1 per 100,000, as opposed to 0.4 per 100,000 for employees. It is important to recognise and listen to what experts are saying. In opposing the clause, Richard Jones, the head of public affairs and policy at the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health—it is hardly a revolutionary organisation —said:

“IOSH fully supports the simplification of legislation and guidance, but is against lowering of standards that could lead to more accidents and deaths. As we have made clear to Government, we think it would be unhelpful, unnecessary and unwise to exempt certain self-employed from health and safety law, as the Government is proposing—causing more of a hindrance than a help. Health and safety is often misunderstood and wrongly labelled as a barrier to business—whereas in fact, it sustains business growth and success. The Government needs to promote this message, provide health and safety support for SMEs and debunk the misperceptions.”

The Prime Minister has made it clear to bodies such as the Federation of Small Businesses that he will continue to champion deregulation as a public service to small businesses. However, if clause 1 is agreed to, it might exempt 1 million people from health and safety law. Health and safety failures in the UK cost billions per year.

At present, the self-employed have a legal duty to ensure that they protect others from harm resulting from their work activity. There is no confusion: everyone is very clear that no one, even the self-employed, can take risks with the safety or health of others. That is the situation as it stands. At present, the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act can be used only when a person puts another person at risk. If someone is injured through their work, regardless of what they previously believed, the Act will apply. No self-employed person has ever been prosecuted or threatened with prosecution for risking only their own health. However, the Act means that the Health and Safety Executive has been able to give them guidance on how they can protect their own safety. Despite the Bill, every self-employed person will still have to do risk assessments to see whether their work poses a risk to others. If there is no risk, there is not a problem, which is just the same as it is now.

That situation will not change, but what will change is the confusion and complacency that the Bill will introduce. Self-employed people will be unsure whether they are covered, or they may assume that they are not covered if they are not on the list of prescribed occupations or sectors, even assuming that they are fully aware of the list. Worse still, people who control workplaces for the self-employed will wrongly think that they do not have a duty of care to them. Self-employed people who employ others may interpret the provision to mean that they are exempt from the law. Given that the most dangerous industries—agriculture and construction, for example—contain a high proportion of self-employed people, anything that confuses the situation is a recipe for disaster. The Bill states that it will reduce the

“burdens resulting from legislation for businesses or other organisations or for individuals”.

In fact, it will do the opposite. It will not change the situation for those who genuinely do not pose a risk to others, but will create complete confusion for all other self-employed people.

Clause 2 removes the power of employment tribunals to make wider recommendations to employers who are found to have discriminated unlawfully. The Labour party totally opposes that clause. Before the introduction of the Equality Act 2010, a tribunal could only provide a remedy to successful claimants and could not recommend that an employer address the root causes of the discrimination. In almost three quarters of cases, the victim leaves the workplace. The tribunal was unable to ask an employer to change its policies, its practices or a culture that would be likely to lead to further discrimination.

The Government want to repeal the provision that allows tribunals to make wider recommendations because of employers’ fears about inappropriate or excessive recommendations. However, there is no credible evidence to support that argument. In 2012, there were 19 cases in which tribunals issued wider recommendations, according to a recent study that was published in the Equality Opportunities Review. In 15 cases, the recommendation was for training on equality and diversity. In seven cases, respondents were asked to address equality issues generally or to review policies. Such recommendations are made by a tribunal judge and two lay members, including one who represents business. After considering all the evidence at the full hearing, they make proportionate and reasonable suggestions to address the serious cases of discrimination.

Clauses 61 to 64 have been discussed widely by Members on both sides of the House. They are of great concern to Labour Members. They will impose a new duty on some bodies to have regard, in exercising their regulatory functions, to the desirability of promoting economic growth. It is, of course, important that regulators do not set out to impede economic growth. However, having a statutory duty that obliges them to have regard to economic growth in the exercise of their functions, with no clarity as to how it might operate, will potentially interfere with their ability to perform their statutory duties. There is a danger that those who are regulated will attempt to use the new duty to override the actions of the regulator. For example, a business could argue that requiring a particular process to be undertaken before it conducts a certain activity would prevent it from making a profit and thus reduce its ability to grow. On the other hand, not conducting such a process could lead to an accident or to an employee becoming ill. Which of the competing duties would prevail and who would make that decision?

On education, paragraph 1 of schedule 14 removes the requirement on governing bodies in England to ensure that policies that are designed to promote good behaviour among pupils are pursued at their school. Surely it is a mistake to remove that requirement. In the past few days, the Secretary of State for Education has stated that discipline is lacking in schools, and has said what teachers, head teachers and governing bodies should do to instil more discipline. However, under the Bill, behaviour policies may be watered down or removed. Effective pupil behaviour policies are made through collaboration between the head teacher, the governors and the teaching staff. Ofsted is inspecting pupil behaviour more closely than ever before.

Paragraph 3 of schedule 14 transfers the responsibility for determining school term dates from local authorities in England to governing bodies. Teachers and parents share concerns about letting schools decide on their own terms and holidays. The National Union of Teachers commissioned YouGov to survey teachers in 2013. The vast majority of teachers—80%—said that it was important that schools maintained similar term dates. There are also concerns about the statutory guidance on staffing matters in schools.

Before I conclude, I want to mention a number of other clauses that cause me great concern. Clause 23 will remove restrictions on the provision of passenger rail services. Clause 26 will remove the duty to order the rehearing of marine accident investigations. Clause 59 relates to ambulatory references to international shipping instruments. I am concerned about those clauses among many others.

In Committee, consideration needs to be given to a raft of serious and detailed issues, especially safety and health. This is a mixed bag of a Bill. It is hard to support it in its present state because of the variety of deregulatory measures that it contains. Some of them are simple, but some of them are very significant.