Gangmasters Licensing Authority

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 21st February 2012 Westminster Hall

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I shall be extremely brief. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) for introducing the debate. I know that it is customary to do so, but I genuinely want to. He expressed eloquently and concisely why we are here. I agree that any Government must regularly review the organisation of workers, so I welcome the review of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, but it is important to consider very carefully its three aspects.

First, is the GLA still necessary? I do not know of any organisation or political party that argues that there is no longer a need for it. Employers have come forward to argue that there is a continuing need for it, as have trade unions across the piece, and many civil society organisations that helped us campaign for it to be set up. Anyone who doubts whether the GLA is needed should go on the website, which describes examples of continuing and horrendous exploitation, some of which have been cited today.

Sometimes in this House, we do not thank people enough. We have heroes among us today: those hon. Members who campaigned long and hard to achieve the breakthrough in the legislation that established the GLA. I want to put on the record my thanks to them on behalf of all those people who have enjoyed the benefits of the GLA so far. I chair the Public and Commercial Services Union cross-party parliamentary group that represents staff who work in the GLA. I have met the staff, and they have explained some of the issues that they have encountered, and some of the remedies that they have been able to introduce to tackle exploitation.

The first issue is that the need continues. The second is whether the GLA has the right powers and appropriate terms of reference. At one point, a lobby was building up, certainly in the farming community, which feared that the GLA might have too many powers, but that is wrong. The farmers are not inspected; the inspection falls on the gangmasters, not the farmers. There is no additional burden on farmers. The argument that is coming across is that those who work in agriculture have supported the GLA for its maintenance of standards and prevention of exploitation.

The issue that has arisen today is that the GLA has too few powers. It does not cover enough areas of industry. I understand the concern of the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) about creeping and additional red tape, but I want to give two examples of anomalies that arise when powers are ineffective. In one instances, GLA officers went to scrutinise the conditions of workers in a bottling factory. They could scrutinise the conditions of the workers who were bottling fruit juices from farm-grown crops, but they could not take any action for workers who were bottling water on the production line beside them. There are anomalies in the powers.

Another example is a gangmaster who was guilty of malpractice in the agricultural sector, and then boasted of moving into the care sector. I understand the concerns that have been raised, but as we review the GLA, we must state the criteria that determine whether we move into other sectors and industries. It is clear that we must overcome the anomalies of gangmasters being found guilty of malpractice in one area, and then setting up camp to exploit workers in another. What came out of discussions with staff on the ground and other organisations is that there are real difficulties in securing adequate prosecutions. We need to look at the GLA’s powers of investigation and its ability to prosecute.

My third point is about staffing resources and location. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South regarding location, that it does not matter which Department, as long as it does not go to a Department that does not give it sufficient priority. That is the anxiety about moving into the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. There has been some argument about the merger of the GLA with the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate. The worry about that is that that is an advisory body; it is not an enforcement and licensing authority. A merger of that sort, undermining the GLA’s licensing and enforcement powers, would be severely detrimental. It would certainly contradict the original intentions of the legislation. That is why there is a protection to keep it in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and why there is anxiety about any lessening of its role as a licensing authority.

There is also an issue about staffing and resources. The GLA, like every other Government body, has been subject to cuts, staffing freezes and so on. We have to be careful that the staffing cuts made so far or threatened in the future do not undermine the role of the GLA. I would welcome the Minister’s looking at that, so that the organisation is adequately staffed.

Finally, I want to commend the staff and management of the GLA for their excellent work. They have outlined some horrendous examples of gangmasters’ operations in this country. They have tackled them and won the support of employers and trade unions alike.

Live Animal Exports (Port of Ramsgate)

John McDonnell Excerpts

Monday 24th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paice]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and I will come to some of those points. Yes, there is a distinction between cases where there happens to be a border, but it is a few miles to an abattoir, and the sort of journey to which my hon. Friend has referred.

The safeguards that I mentioned include the need for all commercial transporters of animals to be authorised and for drivers to pass a competency test. Indeed, I passed one myself. For long journeys, vehicles must be inspected and approved by qualified engineers working for authorised private vehicle inspection bodies. Also, for long journeys, transporters must apply for a journey log for each journey that provides the details of the proposed route, and these applications are checked by the Animal Health and Veterinary Agency before they are approved. More importantly, the journey logs have to be updated by the transporter as the journey progresses and returned once the journey is completed, and we then check whether the actual journey was in line with the original application. If there were any variations, they need to be investigated to see whether they were consistent with the legislation.

There are many other safeguards in the transport legislation, such as the fitness-to-travel rules in terms of the animal itself and technical requirements on space allowances, ventilation, water, and so on. I want to emphasise that the commercial transport of animals on journeys of more than eight hours is highly regulated. On top of all the checks before and after a long journey, inspectors undertake risk-based checks on consignments, either when the animals are loaded at the point of departure or on arrival at the port of Ramsgate. They have powers on discovery of any infringement by individual transporters—that has happened a number of times—and that can lead to suspension or revocation of the transporter’s authorisation to transport animals or the withdrawal of their vehicle approval certificate. I emphasise and, in effect, give a warning that all those engaged in this trade must ensure that they are fully in compliance with all the regulations, because we will continue to be as tough as possible on this trade. It has been the subject of a number of legal challenges over the years by local authorities and port authorities.

The trade in live animals to the continent for slaughter has fluctuated markedly, as my hon. Friend said. There have been periods, such as during the outbreaks of BSE, foot and mouth and, more recently, tuberculosis, when the trade has been halted or interrupted. As she rightly said, the scale has dramatically reduced, so its impact on the economics of the UK livestock sector is now minimal, if anything at all. The present trade is tiny at just a few tens of thousands of animals and certainly fewer than 50,000 so far this year.

The concept of free trade is enshrined in national legislation in the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847, and more recently in article 34 of the treaty of Rome. The latter states:

“Quantitative restrictions on exports, and all measures having equivalent effect, shall be prohibited between Member States.”

Some welfare lobbyists have suggested that changing the 1847 Act is the way forward. However, such a move would clearly be illegal as it would be contrary to article 34 of the treaty.

On the subject of EU treaties, I would like to lay to rest the idea that member states might deal with this issue through article 13 of the Lisbon treaty, which states:

“Member States shall, since animals are sentient beings, pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals”

Some suggest that that is a new requirement and that, therefore, long journeys can no longer be considered legal. That is not the case. The corresponding text of article 13 was previously set out in the binding protocol to the treaty of Amsterdam, which was agreed in 1997. It was therefore already a requirement to treat animals as sentient beings when the European Council agreed the terms of Council Regulation 1/2005. I am afraid that that is not a legal option open to us.

My hon. Friend raised a number of specific points. She rightly referred to the recent changes at European level to make labelling fresh meat with the country of origin mandatory. We are awaiting the detail of that, but I sincerely hope that it will have the effect that she and I want it to have. We have always supported the need for country-of-origin labelling to ensure that British consumers are properly informed. However, that same legislation must not deceive consumers overseas into believing that sheep—it is mainly sheep—born and reared in the UK are native to France, Spain or wherever they are bought.

My hon. Friend referred to the licensing of the ship and the lorries. She referred obliquely to a Mr Onderwater. There is no doubt that he is closely involved in this trade and she is right that he has been prosecuted for cruelty. I cannot comment on the authenticity of her comment about where his office is, but he is not the authorised holder of the shipping licence, which was issued in Latvia. We have asked the Latvian authorities for details of it and they say that his name is not on the licence.

My hon. Friend referred to what happened on Friday. I was not aware of the eight lorries that she referred to. However, there is no legal specification about the number of lorries allowed on the ship. The specification is about the number of people who travel. We believe that that is why some of the lorry drivers decamped and travelled via Dover. I am aware of the six-hour delay in loading to which she referred, which is clearly unacceptable. Whether it was illegal is questionable, because it could count as part of the rest period. The Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency issued a notice to sail to stop any further delay. I admit that I did not know until today that such a power existed. The AHVLA is considering the best course of regulatory action. We are seriously inclined to introduce a maximum period of two hours to load and sail, to prevent that from happening again.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Many of us have constituents who have expressed concerns over the years, and who specifically want swift action on preventing the sail. I think that would help greatly.

[Mr Paice]

I think that preventing the sail might be counter-productive, because then the animals might face a longer journey back to where they came from if they had come from, say, the Republic of Ireland. However, we are taking measures to ensure that the ship sails quickly after loading, so that loading and sailing take place within two hours. I should also emphasise that it is a requirement of European legislation that all the necessary arrangements are made in advance, so that welfare is not compromised by insufficient co-ordination between the parts of the journey.

The motor vessel Joline, to which my hon. Friend referred, is licensed to sail in up to force 6 gales. We have recently had concern that she was sailing at what was considered to be the margin of that safety level. The captain was warned, but I emphasise that that is a maritime safety issue and not directly related to animal welfare, although clearly the welfare of the animals may be affected. There is no evidence that the captain has sailed in winds higher than force 6, but if I may use this phrase, he has sailed close to the wind.

There have been a large number of investigations by the AHVLA, but I need to emphasise that virtually all of them are about the vehicles rather than the ship. That is rather an important point, because it brings us to the enforcement of the existing legislation. That is an important consideration, particularly when we are discussing long journeys. The European Commission has spent nearly two years gathering data on the impact of the legislation and is due to report very shortly. It is too late for us to make any further submissions, as my hon. Friend suggested, but as soon as the report is published we will study it very carefully. We understand that it will have something to say about the level of enforcement across the Community, but will not make any recommendations of changes to the existing legislation. If that is the case, I can assure her that we will make further representations.

Whatever the report concludes, I will press the European Commission to come forward with proposals on both tightening the current enforcement of the existing rules and reviewing the existing long journey requirements to encourage shorter, more sustainable journeys linked to available slaughter capacity. Whatever the eventual outcome, I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that it must be based on the available scientific evidence, not subjective opinion or belief. I have to say to her that many member states will be opposed to any such tightening of those rules, and because the European Commission appears reluctant to take any action, any changes to the current rules on long journeys are unlikely to be achieved in the immediate future. That brings the matter back to this country and to my Department.

I believe that a more sustainable approach to the transport of livestock on long journeys must be found, and I will push for that at every available opportunity in the framework of future EU discussions on animal welfare during transport. I can say to my hon. Friend that, as I implied earlier, we will use every measure available to us within the bounds of legislation to be as robust as we can in ensuring that the highest welfare standards that can be achieved are achieved. As I said, we want to ensure that all those involved in the trade, whether they be shipping people or those running the lorries that transport cattle and sheep, are under no illusion that we will deal with them as robustly as we possibly can and take whatever measures are possible whenever there is an infringement.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue. Although I have not been able to do what I know she and other Members would like me to do, which is to declare that we will ban the trade—I am not able to do that—I hope she will rest assured that we will take every measure we can within the legislative arrangements that we have.

Question put and agreed to.

Flood and Water Management

John McDonnell Excerpts

Thursday 8th September 2011 Westminster Hall

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests that I am secretary to the Fire Brigades Union.

I will focus on the statutory responsibility for flood preparation and flood response, although I almost feel that I should apologise for raising the matter so consistently in recent years. After the 2007 floods, the Pitt review was undertaken; its early recommendations were fairly straightforward, despite what the Committee calls some vagueness. The report recommended:

“The Government should urgently put in place a fully funded national capability for flood rescue with Fire and Rescue Authorities playing a leading role, underpinned as necessary by a statutory duty.”

That recommendation was fairly clear, but, referring to what the report had to say about preparation and rescue, Pitt added that

“the Review strongly believes that a statutory duty is the best means to achieve these outcomes.”

He continued:

“Whilst it is conceivable that non-statutory approaches, such as those proposed by the CFRA”—

chief fire and rescue adviser, Ken Knight—

“might work, such approaches do not provide the certainty the public expect and the Review believes is needed.”

All the evidence demonstrates that the original Pitt recommendations were correct. Despite some additional moneys being invested in equipment and in some elements of training, the evidence that the Committee received from the FBU was that things had gone backwards rather than forwards. Not enough was being invested in training exercises or in the necessary equipment. It should be blindingly obvious to those who have served in local government that if a statutory duty is not placed upon a particular local government role or function, it is no longer a priority at budget time. Statutory duties always gain priority when it comes to the allocation of resources.

I am pleased that the Committee heard more evidence on the subject, and recommendation 3 reinforces what Pitt had said. The Committee said at paragraph 26:

“We are concerned that the lack of a statutory duty for Fire and Rescue Authorities could jeopardise their flood preparation and response work, given pressures on them to direct their limited funding towards fulfilling nondiscretionary duties.”

We had hoped that the Labour Government would legislate on the matter, but what legislation we had did not deal with the question of statutory responsibility.

[Miss McIntosh]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his declaration of interest. Is the problem in his view a matter of funding, the responsibility for which no longer lies with DEFRA but with the Department for Communities and Local Government? We stand by our recommendation, but does he think that we should go further? We say that the matter should be included in the funding formula applied to the emergency services. Does he share our disappointment that that has not been done immediately?

[John McDonnell]

The Pitt review identified two areas: clarity of leadership in a particular response and resources, because a statutory duty gives security of access to those resources. I take the view that the statutory duty needs to be introduced as quickly as possible to tackle both matters. There should be more clarity about local government’s responsibilities; flowing from that will be both the resources and the clarity of the approach on the allocation of those resources for both Government and local fire authorities.

Unfortunately, the previous Government failed to legislate, but they set up various exercises and consultations that will eventually come to fruition. After the general election, the coalition agreement made reference to the Pitt review. It committed the coalition to taking forward

“the findings of the Pitt Review to improve our flood defences, and prevent unnecessary building in areas of high flood risk”—

in other words, implementing the recommendation of the Pitt review with regard to the statutory duty. The previous Government undertook Exercise Watermark. Although they did not specifically undertake to provide the analysis for a case study for a statutory duty, we were advised by Ministers responding to parliamentary questions that the exercise would inform the Government’s decision about whether statutory responsibility would be required. The interim report from Exercise Watermark told us that there would be a final report at the end of September. Encouragingly, it also said:

“Feedback from the Chief Fire Officers Association (CFOA) suggested the statutory duty for flood rescue should be co-ordinated by the Fire and Rescue Service (FRS) with appropriate funding.”

The interim report indicated that we were moving towards a statutory duty being introduced by the Government.

We then also had the recommendations from the fire futures forum, which advises Government on general safety issues, including fire and flooding. It discussed the options for future reform of the fire service and called for the implementation of a statutory duty, but with some caveats on where the funding for such work should come from.

A consensus seems to have been built up in recent years, stemming from the 2007 floods and culminating in the lessons learned from the 2009 floods, that there should be a statutory responsibility. We simply await the outcome of the final report on Exercise Watermark. Will the Minister confirm whether that report will reach us by the end of September? If not, will he intervene—perhaps in this memorial way that seems to be being pushed to establish his reputation—to ensure that the report is finalised as speedily as possible?

If the report fails to recommend a statutory duty for fire and rescue authorities, there will be many who will be extremely anxious that this is a missed opportunity to clarify duties and responsibilities and to secure funding. If it does recommend a statutory responsibility, I urge the Minister—I am sure that Members in this Chamber will assist him all they can—to lobby others to ensure that there is parliamentary time to enable such legislative activity to take place.

Waste Reduction

John McDonnell Excerpts

Wednesday 18th May 2011 Westminster Hall

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I wish to raise four matters that relate to my constituency or are of personal interest. I congratulate the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) on securing this debate; as he has said, coming in real nappy week, it is timely.

The first of the four matters is landfill. I represent a west London constituency that still has considerable open spaces. It covers a large geographical area. For the past 40 years, it has been a site for gravel extraction, the gravel being used by the construction industry in London and the south-east. I have appeared at every planning inquiry for gravel pits in my area for at least 35 years, and only once did we prevent a gravel application from going ahead. Usually, the extracting companies are offered a five-year term for operating the site, but as more gravel is discovered, so permission is renewed and renewed again. In some areas, a whole generation can be blighted by mineral extraction.

Following extraction, the holes are used for landfill. Putting to one side the traffic and noise caused by gravel extraction, the landfill exercise generates more traffic, more noise and more pollution, particularly air pollution and dust. In that respect, I have had considerable problems in my constituency over the last 30 years. For instance, the Stockley site operated for a number of years after the second world war and into the 1970s, and we were plagued with dumping, which can be associated with illegal dumping, and then with methane fires under the ground. Because of such problems, we need to include stricter controls on the development of landfill sites. Under the Localism Bill, greater authority will be given to local authorities, councils and communities to have a say in refusing landfill developments.

The second matter is incineration, a subject which has already been mentioned. Planning permission was given to an incinerator at Colnbrook, which is outside my constituency but adjacent to it. In recent years, the site was given an extension. The prevailing wind means that pollution from the incinerator is blown across my constituency. I have often raised questions in the House about the health impact of the pollution from incineration during my 14 years as a Member.

Research has been undertaken into the high level of birth defects, most of which was refuted by the Department of Health, yet researchers still come up with increasing evidence of the association between incineration and local health problems. I urge the Government to use the review to ensure that the Department of Health supports additional research into the implications of incineration on the health of communities that live down wind. We heard earlier about the research that is being undertaken. It is still relatively small-scale, and I would welcome additional funding going to primary care trusts, or whichever body results from the health legislation, to assist them in undertaking research in areas with incinerators where pollution could have an impact on local communities.

The third of my concerns is about council provision. We have heard about excellent examples of recycling in Wales, but there is an inconsistency of approach between local authorities. We are all in favour of localism, but it would be welcome if the Government were to consider standardising the opportunity to minimise waste as well as recycling it. For example, there is still an inconsistency in my area in the number of recycling centres, and we do not have a food waste service, which is another inconsistency among the London boroughs. I hate to use the phrase, but there is a postcode lottery for policy on waste and for access to facilities to minimise waste or to recycle food waste, compost and so on. In my area, the figures are still significant. In my borough of Hillingdon, 44,644 tonnes of waste is recycled and 64,566 tonnes is disposed of either through incineration or landfill. Therefore, we are still disposing of more waste than we recycle. No attempt is being made to assess what could be achieved through minimisation and prevention, which leads me on to a personal campaign. I support the Nappy Alliance, which is a representative organisation of the reusable nappy sector.

My youngest child was in reusable nappies 15 years ago, which is when I became an advocate of reusable schemes, working through the National Childbirth Trust. It is blindingly obvious that we would have a big impact on the environment if we could promote the use of reusable nappies and provide disincentives for the use of disposable ones.

The Nappy Alliance has brought forward its own charter, which I support. It believes that there should be a 1p tax on disposable nappies to try to prevent the harm that they do to the environment. We should urge the Government to exhort local authorities to work with local community organisations to see what can be done to support the development of reusable nappies. We have seen the figures about the impact on the environment and the savings that could be provided.

The cost of disposing of disposable nappies is estimated to be around £100 million. If the promotion of reusable nappies leads to a 10% reduction in disposable nappies, we could save £10 million, which is worth considering. The savings could be significantly more as people begin to understand the benefits of using reusable nappies.

I urge the Government to enter into discussions with local authorities, the voluntary sector and private industry to see whether we can promote local schemes for reusable nappies. In that way, we will assist in reducing landfill, incineration and overall pollution.

[Hywel Williams]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if this is to be a long-term change, there needs to be a cultural change among young parents? It has taken many years for people to get out of the habit of using the old-style terry nappies. Therefore, we need a sustained effort by third sector organisations, charities, local authorities and central Government to achieve such a change.

[John McDonnell]

It requires a sustained effort, of course, but it should not be an arduous task. In fact, it could be a relatively easy exercise of advocacy. We could make use of the various mechanisms that already exist, particularly to improve the level of parenting. For example, the Sure Start centres and our local nurseries and schools could be used. The task could be relatively easy, if there were a concerted effort by local authorities and community organisations.

It is not like the old days, when we had to swill nappies around in buckets. The design of reusable nappies has moved on dramatically since then. Once parents have been introduced to them, they will see the benefit of them. Parents of younger children often look to see what wider goals there are in life. They want to ensure that they preserve the planet for their children, and they are just at that period in their lives when they are open to the arguments about waste prevention, the protection of the environment and overcoming climate change.

We need clear statements from national Government that this is an important issue that needs to be addressed and from local government about what can be done in the local area. They need to work together on a national plan that can be rolled out on a local level, with the support of the local voluntary sector as well as the private sector industries.

In my area, there are increasing pressures on our local environment as a result of illegal dumping. In their waste review, the Government must look at every measure they possibly can to minimise waste rather than putting the pressure on recycling. Certainly they must do everything they can to prevent landfill and incineration. In the past, I have been a supporter of the landfill tax, but I can see how that has resulted in further illegal dumping.

With the M25, M4 and the A40 all passing through my west London constituency, a large number of illegal dumpers have been able to take waste from central London, drive along the A40, the M4 or the M25 and then fly-tip the illegal rubbish in my constituency. No matter how much we put in place by way of detection and legal action against fly-tippers—some of the legislation that the previous Government introduced was excellent in giving us the tools to do that—the real solution is about minimisation and preventing the build-up of waste products. The disposable nappy might seem a small matter, but if we minimised its use and transferred to reusable nappies, we would be making a major contribution to the future waste policy of this country.

Flood Defence Allocations

John McDonnell Excerpts

Wednesday 9th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Richard Benyon]

I am all for innovation. The carpet in my office is wearing thin from colleagues on both sides of the House coming to see me, but I will certainly meet my hon. Friend. I am keen to hear about new plans and I am happy to involve the Environment Agency, which perhaps has greater technical understanding than I do.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

The Minister mentioned the Pitt review and that the Government have protected incident response. One of the review’s recommendations was to place a statutory duty on fire and rescue authorities. The Government supported that in opposition and the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs supports it now. Can he give us a time scale for the implementation of that statutory duty?

[Richard Benyon]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise this issue, which is the one area of the Pitt review about which we have qualms. I am happy to discuss it because I know that he has a lot of contact with members of the fire service. I am not sure that placing a statutory duty on fire and rescue services will make any difference to the services I have seen. We are really going to be testing them through Exercise Watermark. Some of them tell me that they would like a duty, but quite a lot tell me that it would not make a blind bit of difference to how they operate and how they integrate with other emergency services. However, I have an open mind and I will listen to him.

Public Forest Estate (England)

John McDonnell Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Spelman]

As always, my hon. Friend makes a sensible intervention, pointing out that we are still in the first week of a 12-week consultation. To be kind to Labour Members, a lot of their questions arise from reading media reports, and they would do well to read the consultation document.

The hon. Member for Wakefield claims that people are going to turn up at their local woods only to find them locked up and gated off. The case to which her party leader has consistently referred—that of Rigg wood—has also been mentioned in this debate, but in fact that wood was put up for sale by her Government in April 2010. So perhaps she would like to go to Grizedale to explain to the people of Rigg wood what happened as a result of what her Government did. We, on the other hand, will be guaranteeing access and public benefit rights through the terms of the leases.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I believe that many people have read the consultation document and have understood the Government’s proposal. Taking the Government at face value on this consultation, if a vast majority of people oppose this proposal, will the Government accede to their wishes?

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

It is difficult to follow that. Let me be as brief as possible. I commend the hon. Member for New Forest West (Mr Swayne) on referring to the staff of the Forestry Commission. It was a shame, however, that the Secretary of State never said a single word about the staff; indeed, it was more than a shame—it was a disgrace. The staff of the Forestry Commission are extremely loyal and they have built up expertise over time.

I chair the Public and Commercial Services trade union parliamentary group. I have a representation from the president of the PCS branch at the Forestry Commission. It is worth our while listening to what he wanted Parliament to hear. He says that the staff

“have spent their entire careers, a lot of them, in the FC and are deeply traumatised at the prospect of losing their jobs.”

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

I very much endorse what the hon. Gentleman says about Forestry Commission staff, but as a constituency MP, I have seen the Forestry Commission in Northumberland shed good quality, experienced staff over many years, and whole villages that were built for forestry employees no longer have a single Forestry Commission employee living in them.

[John McDonnell]

I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s point and I have shared his concerns over the years as well.

The PCS president continued:

“For many there is no prospect of picking up other work because the economy is in such a poor state that there simply isn’t work as all of the other public services also have to make cuts…Staff in the FC are unique; they regard their jobs as vocational. They are amongst the most loyal and committed that I have ever seen.”

Most of us would share that viewpoint and want it to be placed on the record. Where we have loyal staff, I believe they deserve some loyalty from us, as their employers, as well.

The current position has been mentioned, but not as starkly as I am about to put it. The 25% cuts from the comprehensive spending review mean that from a staff of 1,400, between 300 and 350 will lose their jobs. About 29% of the cuts relate to Forest Enterprise, which manages the estate. Already 256 jobs are notified as being lost in that section. Moreover, in the Forestry Authority and Forest Research, at least 40 to 50 and possibly more jobs will be lost as the 19% cuts takes place. The organisation is structured in those three elements: Forest Enterprise, Forestry Authority and Forest Research. Expertise, however, has been built up in the whole organisation so that one feeds information to the other and the expertise becomes interchangeable. By breaking up the organisation, as the Government propose, the bulk of the work within Forest Enterprise will be sold off either to the private sector or to charities and others. The expertise will therefore be cut off from the regulatory authority section of the Forestry Commission as well as from the research element.

[Richard Graham]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but given that the debate is about the future of our forests, it is vital for Members in all parts of the House to recognise that heritage forests such as the Forest of Dean—which is next to my constituency—are not for sale, and that whatever the outcome of the consultation, access rights and biodiversity will be preserved for ever.

[John McDonnell]

As I have said, we need to recognise that these forests have been preserved for us by staff who have worked for us for generations over the last century. In my view, failure to discuss the staff undermines the Government’s duty of care to those people who have served us so well.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[John McDonnell]

Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to continue? Other Members wish to speak.

The consultation document contains only one paragraph that deals with staff. It states that the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations will apply to the transfer of any of them. However, as we know from other privatisations and sell-offs, TUPE does not prevent a new employer from laying off staff in due course. It does not protect pay and terms and conditions in the long term.

[Mr Stuart]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[John McDonnell]

No, I will not.

TUPE does not even protect pensions. There is nothing to prevent a new employer from laying off staff while also undermining their conditions and pensions. I urge the Government to address the issue of their future. When I looked at the impact assessment to see whether there was any reference to it, I found that the only reference in the first seven pages related to redundancy costs. It reads as follows:

“Transition costs of redundancy, TUPE and possible further professional fees have not been quantified.”

That is repeated six times. It appears on each of the first seven pages of the document.

There are real anxieties among this group of expert staff about their future. There are anxieties about a transfer to the voluntary sector. Most Members have been involved with charities—most of us have served on their boards—and we know how difficult it is to maintain a charity. In any charitable or voluntary organisation, about 30% of the time is spent on trying to find funds for future years.

[Mr Sheerman]

I chair a charitable trust, the John Clare trust. We hoped to buy some woodland, but were told that the cost of managing woodland is 10 times the purchase price. Managing woodland is very expensive, and charities will not be able to do it.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

When charities encounter difficulties in these circumstances, they will be forced to make further savings like any other organisation, and the only savings that they will be able to make will be secured by further staff cuts. The House must understand the insecurities that exist among this group of people. I also believe that the sell-off will degrade the overall expertise that has been built up over the last century, and that as a result the very management of the forests will be put at risk.

The management met the staff and unions this morning. People were dismayed; and yes, a number of union representatives have said that, if necessary, they will resort to industrial action in an attempt to protect their jobs. I believe that it would be the first occasion on which industrial action had taken place in the Forestry Commission. That should demonstrate to Members the depth of the anger that exists about how these people are being treated. They are being treated like chattels rather than as the staff who have been so loyal to us over the last century.