Oral Answers to Questions

Anne Main Excerpts

Monday 20th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Edward Timpson]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need to link schools with mental health services better. One piece of work that is currently under way is on creating single points of contact in schools. We are working with child and adolescent mental health services so that not only can children be referred more quickly to the services they need, but teachers can be trained to spot the signs and deal with them effectively within the school environment. Nevertheless, there is, of course, a lot more work to do.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

Parents who have children with autism have told me that they have great difficulty accessing curricular and extracurricular activities. What more can be done to link up CAMHS and schools to ensure that there is a crossover of information so that these conditions can be managed better?

[Edward Timpson]

As I said in the answer I just gave to the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), we are working with NHS England and CAMHS to make sure that they can better support and work alongside schools through a single point of contact, so that they can not only spread knowledge and good practice but make quicker referrals to the more specialist services when necessary. There is a strong commitment from the Government in this area, supported by the Prime Minister, and we intend to make good progress.

Fathers in the Family

Anne Main Excerpts

Wednesday 1st March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Before I call Neil Gray to move the motion, I point out that eight hon. Members have put their names down to speak in this debate. We also have the wind-ups, which will start at 10 past five. Depending on how long Mr Gray chooses to speak—it is his debate—there will be a time limit on speeches. If people are here to make interventions, I ask that they are kept brief and that Members are mindful of colleagues who may wish to speak later in the debate. I call Neil Gray to move the motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech, and I congratulate him on securing this important debate. I wonder whether he has seen the helpful Barnardo’s briefing, which points out that without appropriate support, young and vulnerable fathers in particular can end up feeling isolated and marginalised by services and agencies. It goes on to recommend that local authorities should have an identified lead professional responsible for co-ordinating work.

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. I ask that interventions are brief, otherwise I shall overrule them.

[Neil Gray]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. That is sage advice from Barnardo’s, as is normally the case from that organisation.

Shared parental leave was introduced by the last UK Government, but there was a widespread admission, including from its architect Jo Swinson, that the current policy does not go far enough. We need to ensure that employers are supported in offering all employees the opportunity to take a period of leave to care for their child, so that the responsibility does not fall de facto on women’s shoulders. We need an effective shared parental leave policy that will help men at home and also women at work. It would also help the economy, because a 2014 Centre for Economics and Business Research study suggests that a “work from anywhere” culture would add an extra £11.5 billion a year to the UK economy.

Some mums want to stay at home for as long as possible and would not choose to share parental leave with their partner—I can perfectly understand that—but we are failing to help the mums who want to return to work and the dads who want to spend more time at home. In a similar vein, employees now have a right to request flexible working, but there is no definition of what that means, nor any compulsion on employers to do anything other than just consider it. As a society we are starting, rightly, to move away from the definition of fathers as the breadwinning disciplinarians, but we have not yet caught up in the workplace. The shift in fathers’ desire to be more involved at home does not match the predicted uptake of parental leave by men of between 2% and 8%. There is still a reticence among men to ask to be at home more and a market expectation on them to continue in the traditional role as working breadwinners.

The only way to shift societal norms is to support or incentivise behaviour through policy, but employment law is currently decided here at Westminster. The UK Government must acknowledge the reality that gender-based discrimination against both men and women is not only hugely detrimental to individuals and our society but is harming our continued economic growth.

There was no prouder or more important moment of my life than when I became a father—on either occasion, in case my daughter or son look back on this and suggest any favouritism—but fatherhood and parenthood is clearly not a single event; it is a lifelong adventure and responsibility. My experiences as a dad are already different from my father’s, as society moves on. The Year of the Dad highlighted why being a dad is so important. I have raised this issue today to suggest to the UK Government that they need to do more to help in that regard. We need to support the changing societal ideas about what being a dad is about and support employers so that dads can live up to the new expectations and aspirations of fathers. I make an offer to the Minister today to help constructively to ensure that the UK Government’s employment law is directed towards supporting all mums and dads to be able make the choices that are right for them and their children.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. Before I call the next speaker, I must tell hon. Members that we are operating on a four-minute time limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Burrowes]

Yes. The measure must be implemented, rather than having the elongated process to get on the birth certificate. There are already exceptions in law to deal with violent fathers who should not be anywhere near the mothers, and we recognise that. However, that is not an excuse. We must implement that as soon as possible. It is a very practical measure. We talk here about the role of fathers. There are lots of ways to do this, but this is a matter of law. We all battle for a change in the law. That happened in 2009. Implement it, so that we can say loud and clear on the registration certificate that there is a joint enterprise of mothers and fathers and that we are taking it seriously. It is there from birth—it should be in the registration. We are saying loud and clear that of course mothers matter, and fathers matter too.

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Before I call the SNP spokesman to wind up, I point out that I would like to offer Neil Gray a minute or so at the end of the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Newlands]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend; if she had waited a few seconds I would have come on to that. Those factors help to create a situation in which men in the UK still spend only 24 minutes caring for their children for every hour that women do. Policies to create an economy that empowers and promotes the positive role of fathers in the family would help to achieve equality for women. In Sweden, it was found that for every additional month of leave dads took, mums’ career earnings increased by 6.7%.

However, despite some progress—such as the Scottish Government’s Year of the Dad initiative, which highlights the positives of active dads and which my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts spoke of in detail earlier—there is still a lot of work to do in creating an economy that allows dads to achieve an appropriate work-life balance. Attitudes towards the role of the father have changed somewhat, and for the better, but our economy has not adapted to the changing role of the modern dad. I think we all want to see any dad be able to achieve an appropriate, family-friendly work-life balance. That would benefit not only families but our economy.

In closing, it would be remiss of me not to speak of families in which the parents’ relationship has not survived, and there is either no father figure, or one whose influence is via scheduled weekly access. Like an increasing number of children, I experienced growing up in a traditional family unit, but following my parents’ separation when I was around eight, I was brought up, in the main, by my mother through my formative years. Although we talked earlier about promoting parental equality and enhancing the role of fathers, we must ensure that those who bring up children on their own—be they male or female—are fully supported, and we must try to end the stigma that the Daily Mail and other such publications attach to such parents.

Let us be clear: in the vast majority of single-parent families, it is women who bring up the children. They are often vilified in said press, whereas a single father will often be depicted as brave and an all-around good egg. That inherent bias aids no one and must end now. The truth is that although we would all like to see relationships succeed and children growing up in stable and loving families, that has become more an exception than the rule. Equally, there can be no doubt that children brought up lovingly in single-parent families have a better environment in which to grow up than children whose parents constantly argue and are trying to stay together for the sake of the child. That rarely works.

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. Can the hon. Gentleman be brief? I thought he said “in conclusion” quite a long time ago.

[Gavin Newlands]

I do not often say this—in fact, I may have never said it—but I would like to thank my own mother for doing a fantastic job in raising my sister and me following my parents’ separation. I would like to reiterate that there is no one perfect model for perfect parenting—

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is eating into other Members’ time. I have to call the Opposition spokesperson.

[Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I congratulate the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) on securing this interesting debate.

We know that families come in many shapes and sizes. Regardless of the gender of the parent, children need a safe, loving and stable environment in which to thrive and develop into healthy and happy adults. We also know that many fathers wish to spend significantly more time with their children than they are currently able to, in order to create that loving environment. However, many fathers find themselves unable to avoid working long hours or are subject to an inflexible working environment that prevents them from sharing parenting duties more equally.

Many of the underlying causes of those issues are inextricably linked to the same deep and corrosive structural barriers that hold women back in the workplace and contribute to a persistent gender pay gap of 18.9%, which, at the current rate of progress, could take 60 years to close. Occupational segregation, for example, sees women stuck in low-paid and undervalued sectors of the economy. Women make up more than 60% of those earning less than the living wage set by the Living Wage Foundation. Meanwhile, men continue to dominate the best-paid positions. Women make up 67% of the management workforce in entry-level roles, but only 43% of senior managers and 29% of directors. Those factors, taken together, often give families little choice as to whose wage they rely on.

Women continue to play a greater role in caring for children and sick or elderly relatives. According to Office for National Statistics analysis of time use data, women put in more than double their proportion of unpaid work in cooking, childcare and housework. As a result, more women—42%, compared with 11% of men— work part time, and those jobs are typically lower paid, with fewer opportunities for progression. The issue therefore becomes cyclical.

The impact of women being stuck in low-paid or non-paid caring roles has implications for fathers in the workplace too. Research undertaken by the TUC last year shows that as many as two in five new fathers are ineligible for shared parental leave, as their partners are not in paid work or they fail to meet the qualifying conditions. That prevents fathers from spending time with their newborn children. Will the Minister tell us what steps she is taking to ensure that all new fathers who want to take shared parental leave are able to?

Another solution to enable greater flexibility for parents is to provide high-quality, universal, affordable childcare, as Labour has promised to do. We believe that childcare can play a vital role in promoting gender equality, particularly by making it easier for parents to balance the competing demands of work and family life. The Government’s promise of 30 hours of free childcare a week for three and four-year-old children of working parents is looking more and more likely to collapse as each day passes. Research by the Family and Childcare Trust shows that providers and local authorities feel that the 30 hours requirement will mean either that they are forced to reduce the total number of places on offer or that they will simply no longer remain financially viable.

The Government have also admitted that the majority of children who are eligible for the current universal 15 hours of childcare per week will not be eligible for the expanded entitlement, leaving hundreds of thousands of children from working families—particularly those with parents on low or insecure incomes—shut out of the 30-hour-a-week offer. Will the Minister tell us what the Government are going to do to ensure that providers and local authorities can afford to provide 30 hours of free childcare? Does she have plans to expand the current entitlement?

Finally, the Women and Equalities Committee report on the gender pay gap recommends increasing paternity rights, particularly those around leave, to ensure that men can spend more time with a new child. Increased paternity rights for men, on top of existing maternity rights, would make both men and women’s lives better. We know that fathers want to play an active role in their children’s lives and families want to spend more time together with a new baby, which is why Labour would increase both paternity leave and paternity pay.

One of the most pervasive underlying causes of the imbalance between men’s and women’s roles in the family is workplace discrimination. Government research with the Equality and Human Rights Commission estimates that 54,000 women a year are being forced out of their jobs due to maternity discrimination. Does the Minister agree that extending paternity leave and consequently increasing workplace flexibility would be one way of addressing that appalling discrimination? Does she also agree that women suffering maternity discrimination must be able to uphold their rights, yet—

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. Will the hon. Lady finish her sentence and then conclude?

[Paula Sherriff]

Okay, sure. If we are to support men in taking a greater role in the family unit and, as a consequence, tackle the barriers facing women, we need to support men and women in having a real and meaningful choice when it comes to accessing well-paid and family-friendly employment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Dinenage]

I have very little time. If my hon. Friend does not mind, I want to make a bit of progress.

I am determined to keep further action on this in my back pocket to see how these policies bed in for just a little bit longer, especially when we bring in the gender pay gap regulations next month, before imposing any further changes that would impose significant costs on business and the public purse. I do not want to do that unnecessarily.

We know that for families with young children childcare is not an issue, but the issue, and is hugely important for both mothers and fathers. That is why we are increasing our spending to a record £6 billion per year by 2020—more than any Government ever. That means we are doubling the childcare entitlement to working parents of three and four-year-olds from 15 hours to 30 hours. That will start in September 2017, saving parents who get the full entitlement about £5,000 per year.

The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff) is wrong—we have eight early implementer areas that are already delivering that. I have met most of them, and the policy is going really well and making a measurable difference to parents up and down this country. More than 80% of local authorities will see their money go up. We are spending a record amount of money on this, so it is unfortunate scaremongering to say that it is not going to be a success. It comes in addition to the 15 hours a week we give to the 40% most disadvantaged two-year-olds. She asked about parents who are not in work; we are also helping with 70% of childcare costs for people on low incomes through working tax credits, and 85% for parents on universal credit.

We will shortly publish an early years workforce strategy, which aims to support and attract the best people into the early years workforce. Crucially, it will include how we can get more men into early years work. If we are going to focus on how we get more girls into science, technology, engineering and maths, it is only right that we get more boys into caring roles, and it will do something to break down gender stereotypes and ensure that more men work in caring professions.

The hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) and my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Suella Fernandes) mentioned family law. As my hon. Friend mentioned, the law changed in 2014, bringing in a statutory presumption that both parents should be involved in their children’s lives. I will certainly pass on their comments to my colleagues in the Ministry of Justice, along with those of my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) on the issue of joint registration.

My hon. Friends the Members for St Austell and Newquay and for Enfield, Southgate talked about offenders who grew up in fatherless households. Positive family relationships have also been identified as a factor in preventing reoffending. For example, research has found that prisoners who reported improved family relationships while in prison were less likely to reoffend after release.

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. May I ask the Minister to wind up to give one minute to the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts?

[Caroline Dinenage]

Absolutely. We are entirely committed to achieving gender parity in the workplace. I conclude by paying tribute to the dads, the stepdads, the foster dads, the grandads and the other remarkable father figures up and down the country, including my own, who are making a positive difference to young lives and old lives on an hourly and daily basis.

Further Education

Anne Main Excerpts

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Carol Monaghan]

I will of course do so, Madam Deputy Speaker. As hon. Members from both sides of the House—and colleges—have sought my advice, it might be worth their taking account of what I have to say.

To ensure access to and inclusion in colleges, the Scottish Government have provided an additional £6.6 million for part-time places. Further education students can get bursaries of up to £93 a week. The Scottish Government have retained the education maintenance allowance to enable more young people to stay in education. Colleges offer our young people pathways. In August, I visited Glasgow Clyde college to see the range and quality of courses on offer. The new purpose-built facility was bursting with students engaged in their studies. Local employers are working with the college—

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Carol Monaghan]

No, I will not give way because I have been encouraged by Madam Deputy Speaker to be quick, so I will be.

Local employers such as BAE—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson), who is making interventions from the Bench, could learn something from the picture in Scotland. Local employers such as BAE are working with the college, doing day releases with apprentices. There is a nursery on site for students with caring responsibilities. The number of women on full-time courses has increased. There is also a programme for students with additional support needs that prepares them for the world of work.

Certain school pupils benefit from attending local colleges for two or three afternoons a week. I am sure that the situation is similar in England. That allows them to follow vocational courses that the school cannot provide. Often, these are disaffected or challenging students for whom academic routes are not working. I keep hearing about how colleges provide routes for students to do their A-levels. Some students follow vocational routes and get vocational qualifications, and those must be viewed as the equals of academic subjects.

One challenge that colleges experience is the way in which they are perceived by society. It is important that we, as legislators, recognise the vital role that they play in providing positive destinations. A few years ago, I had a student whose parents were very keen for him to go to university, but he was not emotionally or academically ready. When he saw what the college had on offer, he decided to sign up. He has flourished and now has two job offers for when he finishes in June, but he also has the option of entering the third year at university.

Colleges provide an excellent educational opportunity for our young people. Their role in providing routes to employment must be recognised and appropriately funded. It is no coincidence that Scotland has a higher rate of positive destinations and a higher rate of youth employment than the UK as a whole.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

It is interesting to follow the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), who says we should bring back night school. I would like to know where he would get the funding for it. It has been gone for a long time in a lot of areas.

Mr Deputy Speaker, you missed being lectured for 15 minutes by the Scottish National party spokesperson in a debate that its Members did not even bother to sit around to participate in afterwards. That is a real shame, given that we have an Opposition day debate today. I feel sorry that we were lectured like that when they could not be bothered to stay to listen to the meat of the debate.

I want to focus on apprenticeships, because the motion says that this Government are risking the country’s prosperity, yet it leaves out apprenticeships. The right hon. Gentleman did refer to them, but I was disappointed to hear him say that they are not worth the paper they are written on. I have been working with my local college, Oaklands college, which has apprenticeship week in March; I met many providers who were encouraged to make sure that apprenticeships are worth while. That is why I wanted to speak in this debate. I cringed when I heard the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) sneer—I can use no other word—about an apprenticeship; she seemed to be saying that using the till in a bakery was not worth while.

[Catherine West]

rose—

[Mrs Main]

I am not giving way to the hon. Lady, because she has plenty on her own side who wish to speak. Many young people, my own son included, want to go into an apprenticeship and they will be feeling today, “If I take up an apprenticeship at the lower level and learn some of the skills of interacting with other people, using the till, and learning to get up to get to work on time, to make myself presentable and to make myself work-ready, somehow I am not—

[Catherine West]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it possible to come back on a particular point?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

It is up to each Member to decide whether to give way.

[Mrs Main]

As I have said, I did try to intervene when this matter was under discussion. I want to speak on this because young people will feel that it is not worth learning some of the softer skills, such as how to deal with customers, how to be pleasant, how to be work ready, and how to turn up on time in the morning. I worry that we are going down a route of saying that being academic—I am sure that you absolutely were, Mr Deputy Speaker—is the only thing that is worth pursuing. I wish to speak up for the work that this Government have done in bringing up the value for everybody regardless of their educational attainment at school. I am talking about bringing up the value for those people who are learning to get into the job of work.

[Karin Smyth]

rose—

[Mrs Main]

No, I will not give way.

[Karin Smyth]

On that point—

[Mrs Main]

Okay, I will give way, but the hon. Lady is taking time from her own side.

[Karin Smyth]

The hon. Lady has misrepresented what was said. There was no attempt to degrade lower skilled jobs or say that they were not important, or that the people going into those jobs were not important, but those jobs are not what we think of as high-skilled apprenticeships. That was the point that my hon. Friend was trying to make, and she has been misrepresented.

[Mrs Main]

The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) made her point very clearly. Effectively, she was saying, “What was that worth?” I am saying that, for many young people, getting to work on time, being presentable, using soft skills, and learning how to use a till, particularly if they are not mathematically literate, are valuable. I have met young people with disabilities who find those opportunities valuable. We must stop degrading those opportunities by saying that they are not worth the paper they are written on—the right hon. Member for Tottenham said that. We have to ensure that apprenticeships are worth the paper they are written on. It is a different matter if they are not. I am not aware of any apprenticeships in my constituency that are not worth the paper they are written on, and I am seeing young people benefiting from them.

I pay tribute to the Minister for encouraging people. I wish to remove any sneering about people who do not have high academic attainment and say, “If you are serving me in my local Greggs in St Albans, I value you. I value the fact that you are engaging with me properly and that you are someone who has taken the trouble to skill up.” I would not like to see that young person being put off taking on any further education.

Let me mention Naomi. She was a young person who had not done well at school, who was not good at attending and who was not good in the world of work. She was picked up by Barclays, and she has become an absolute credit to it. It trained her up, got her work ready, got her studying qualifications alongside being trained up on the job. Now Naomi is a high achiever for Barclays. That first chance to get on the rung of an apprenticeship—our Government should be proud of what it is offering—is not just a throwaway that should not even be considered in the motion. It is something that is hugely valuable and sets many young people like Naomi on the right path into work and gets it into their head that there is something worth studying for. They realise that they can make something of their lives.

I value apprenticeships at all levels. For some young people, they click in a way that school did not. It is not always right to get everybody going into more education. Many can absorb a lot, learn a lot and change their lives by taking up some of those more modest offerings that the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green and others sneer about and refer to as not being worth the paper they are written on.

Trade Union Bill

Anne Main Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

In opening the debate, the Secretary of State mentioned one nation Government. Disraeli, the architect of one nation Toryism, passed the Conspiracy, and Protection of Property Act 1875, which decriminalised the work of trade unions and allowed for picketing. I think Disraeli will be turning in his grave at what a Conservative Government are doing tonight. The Bill runs contrary to a British sense of fair play and common sense. It will increase bureaucracy and burdens of regulation, and it will be counterproductive to the Government’s stated aims of improving efficiency and productivity. The Bill will not help us become more prosperous. If anything, it runs the risk of making industrial action more disruptive and the British economy less productive and less attractive to inward investment.

As several of my hon. Friends have already said, the level of industrial action in the UK is historically low. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) said, the average number of working days lost to industrial action since 2010 has been 647,000, in stark contrast to the average in the 1980s of 7.213 million. The past 30 years have seen a historically low incidence of industrial action, as a consequence of the changing nature of the employment market, a reduction in union membership and legislation that, frankly, has restricted union power.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) suggested that such events were inconveniences when they happen. Surely the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) can accept that London is brought to its knees on a regular basis, with staff taking two or three hours to get to work and back again and with a great loss of employment and money. These are not inconveniences; they are serious and they need tackling.

[Mr Wright]

Britain has low levels of industrial disputes relative to our main economic rivals—half the EU average, as my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) said, and lower than the figures in the US, Korea and Canada. If industrial action acting as a material disruption to the running of the modern economy is the premise behind the Bill, that will not bear scrutiny of the evidence.

Clause 2, which introduces a 50% turnout requirement to authorise a ballot, has significant implications. It goes against the British value of common sense and fair play. No other part of the constitutional settlement or democratic engagement requires that threshold. Clause 3, requiring 40% support for action in “important public services” is equally sinister. Again, in no other part of important public services is that required. It is not a requirement for the important public service of electing a local councillor or a Member of Parliament.

The Government argue that a positive impact of the provisions in clauses 2 and 3 will be that unions will work harder to make the case for ballots for industrial action. However, it is far more likely that there will be greater disruption and use of leverage campaigns, such as withdrawal of good will, work-to-rule, protests, demonstrations and unofficial action. Paradoxically, the Bill might result in more working days lost to industrial action and a failure to address the pressing economic challenge of improving productivity. In a modern economy, surely the most appropriate approach is collaboration rather than confrontation.

When General Motors was restructuring its European operations in 2012, the Ellesmere Port car plant would probably have closed had it not been for the close working relationship between management and unions. The ability of Nissan to win the internal competition to build the new Juke earlier this month is testimony to continuous improvement, a drive towards efficiency and constantly rising quality levels, which are possible only through effective collaboration between management and unions.

The Bill pushes us towards a more adversarial relationship between management and the workforce. Does the Minister really think that deals such as those done on behalf of the UK economy with GM or Nissan will be made easier through this Bill when its provisions lend themselves to mutual suspicion, acrimony, work-to-rule and more disruptive industrial relations? The ability of this country to land more inward investment is compromised through the Bill.

The Secretary of State has stated that one of the main themes of his leadership of the Department will be deregulation and we on the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills will certainly want to consider the work of the Government to ensure that businesses are freed from unnecessary red tape, but why has the same approach to deregulation not been applied to the Bill? Under clause 6, the Bill imposes such burdensome regulation that it puts the EU banana straightening compliance team to shame. The extension of the roles and powers of the certification officer will impose additional administrative and financial pressures on unions. There will be a reporting requirement as to whether industrial action took place in the past 12 months, the nature of the dispute and the action that was taken. Unions might not collect such information centrally, so that will add additional bureaucracy. There is also something sinister about the state’s collecting information on what might be private disputes between the employer and workforce that could be resolved relatively early in the negotiation process.

In an economy that is becoming increasingly characterised by unequal, low-skilled and insecure employment with workers employed in small companies or often categorised as self-employed, the challenge of collective bargaining and how unions can work to play a positive role should be considered and encouraged, yet this petty and vindictive Bill does nothing to deal with that. It stops harmonious industrial relations and long-term prosperity. It should be killed by the House tonight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley) (Lab)]

We have listened to some good speeches from Members, from both those who disagree with the Bill and those who agree with it.

I have been a trade unionist all my life, starting as a coalminer and member of the National Union of Mineworkers. Before anybody gets up to interrupt me, let me say that I have been on strike only three times in my life. The miners were never fond of going on strike, but when they did, they did.

I was always available to the manager when there was trouble at the pit. He would ring me and get me out of bed—I do not know whether other colleagues have had the same experience—and say, “There’s trouble, can you come across to the pit?” We would get together the lads who were not working, and get them back on their feet and digging coal again. I solved the problem—until the next morning. What we used to say was, “Work under protest; we will have a meeting with the manager tomorrow and solve the argument.” Nine times out of 10, we did. There were not many wildcat strikes in the coal mines, although we did have two or three big strikes.

It has been said many times that this Bill attacks trade unions rather than work with them. In my trade union work, I always found that I could work with the manager. We would have arguments many times, but we came up with an agreement in the end.

We have heard about wildcat strikes, but I am afraid that this Bill might bring them back big style. Once unions are shackled through the ballots and the thresholds, there could be more wildcat strikes, which are worse than organised strikes.

The check-off, the paying-in or the opt-out of the political levy is another issue. That has annoyed me more than anything. The hypocrisy of this Government in trying to stop trade unions paying into the political levy is obvious. The political levy goes not just to the Labour party but to a lot of organisations. It could be asked why the Government are doing this. Perhaps they are trying to stop trade unionists putting money into Labour; perhaps they want to crush the party by stopping its money.

I looked up some companies. I thought, if the Tories are stopping us getting money, what about Amazon, which gave £19 million to the Tories? Then there is the Dell corporation, which gives £7.3 million; Ford motor company, which gives £12 million; and Siemens, which gives £4.7 million—and these are only a few! These are big companies giving money to the Tories—it is their slush bucket.

[Mrs Main]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Campbell]

No, I will not.

I sometimes wonder what the shareholders think of those companies. Have they got an opt-out? Have the shareholders got an “in” or “out” vote in the same way as is proposed for the trade unions? Let us be fair. I appreciate that these companies get a lot of money off the Government. I have the figures with me here, showing that these companies are getting subsidies worth £93 billion a year from the taxpayer. We have heard the Tories talking about the taxpayers—the poor taxpayers—but I can tell the poor taxpayers that they are getting diddled. The big companies are getting that much tax off them.

I had a look at the House of Lords.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Campbell]

Well, I will be next, but I will not be putting in the money these guys put in! Now we come on to the auction and the Tory slush bucket. Lord Ross has given the Tory party £200,000; Lord Davies, £160,000; Lord Griffin, £250,000—and I could go on and on and on. This is where the Tories get their money from. That is how it goes into the Tory slush bucket, and now they are attacking the trade unions in the check-off and opt-in votes.

[Mrs Main]

Give way!

[Mr Campbell]

No. That is the reality and the truth. That is the Tory party—hypocritical.