Trade Union Bill

Catherine West Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery]

There is no doubt about that. I fully concur with my hon. Friend about the impact this will have on women in particular. Whether we like it or not, the Bill will have a disproportionately negative impact on women in the workplace.

Getting back to these ordinary people, trade union members are taxpayers. They want their children to get to school in the morning, to counter the argument made by a number of Members on the Government Benches. Do people think that trade union members do not have children?

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the tone of this debate is very similar to that on working tax credits? How do Conservative Members think they can make the case for working people if they are going to be ideologically driven on the subject of working people? It does not make sense.

[Ian Lavery]

I fully agree and hope to develop that point.

This is the gagging Bill, part 2. It is about disarming any dissent, particularly in the public sector. When we look at the thresholds, the ballot provisions, the measures on agency workers and all the new clauses and amendments, we begin to see the big picture. The Bill is about criminalising working people and eradicating any resistance, particularly in the public sector and particularly with regard to women. Why are the Government bashing low-paid people in the public sector, imposing pay restraints on them and coming up with crazy ideas about stripping tax credits from hard-working, low-paid people? They do not want to give those people the right to fight back. That is what the Bill is about. It is about eradicating that dissent while the Conservative Government keep their foot firmly on the necks of the low paid who are struggling even to make ends meet.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery]

Absolutely. Many, many papers have been presented by professors, doctors and other experts with regard to facility time. There have been many battles on industrial relations problems over many, many years—decades and decades—resulting in a decent industrial relations policy that allows for facility time. Facility time could involve, for example, discussions on health and safety, avoidance of industrial disputes or avoidance of the progression of court cases. It is not about people sitting in an office on the telephone organising disputes—quite the opposite; it is about trying to avoid these disputes.

[Catherine West]

When I was a council leader employing thousands of staff, facility time was given to cope with all the casework as a result of the then Government forcing cuts on local government that led to many redundancies. We had to triple the amount of casework time, which was crucial in ensuring that that terrible period of redundancy was managed in a humane way that helped people.

[Ian Lavery]

I agree with my hon. Friend’s sentiments. If the Government start to decide how much, or how little, facility time individuals should have, there will be a breakdown in communication between the trade unions, the workforce and, indeed, the employers. In local government and the NHS, facility time is much valued and to the benefit of the general public.

If we applied the 40% and 50% thresholds to members of the coalition Cabinet prior to the election, not one of them would have been elected. We have to be fair and consistent with regard to thresholds. The average turnout for the police and crime commissioner elections was 17%, but nobody is saying that we should not listen to anything they have to say. The Government themselves were elected by only 24% of the electorate, but not many people are saying—although a lot of people are wishing it—that they should not have the right to govern. Fairness should prevail.

There have been many discussions about how e-balloting would provide for a much bigger turnout. That is what the Conservative Government want, and I agree: we want more people to participate in the ballot, hence the threshold issue. It is terribly unfair to suggest that e-balloting is not a secure way to ballot individuals, because it is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I will wait to hear what the Minister says. He is an extremely reasonable person and there are other ways in which such things can happen. I encourage the Government to accept the amendment because I do not want to see this clause unamended in an Act of Parliament signed by Her Majesty.

Let me quote someone I greatly admire:

“In most parts of the world the suggestion that someone might be both conservative and liberal would be viewed as absurd…In the UK there is no finer tradition, no more established custom and no stronger institution than that of freedom under the law…That’s why in Anglo-Saxon countries conservatism is freedom’s doughtiest defender and why the advance of freedom gives conservatism its moral purpose.”

Those are the words of the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), and I entirely agree with him.

[Catherine West]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there are echoes in that speech of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014, in which charities were almost proscribed for doing what they believed was right? There are also echoes from the attempts to change or alter the Human Rights Act 1998—it feels as if there is a creepy sense of authoritarianism, which I do not think Members in this place agree with.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I respect the hon. Lady but I do not entirely agree with her. I would be interested to see whether the chilling effects that people so often claimed the 2014 Act would have on the 2015 general election campaign actually took place—indeed, we should have a review of that Act as it is important. I have made clear my views on the Human Rights Act: I believe that we should remain signatories to the European convention on human rights, and I hold to that. We look forward to seeing what the Government bring forward. I urge the Government, and especially the Minister whom I greatly admire, to have another look at the Bill, and to come forward with proposals that allow people who want to work together in this sort of format, and who are paying the right costs, to do so.

Child Food Poverty

Catherine West Excerpts

Friday 16th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Children and Families (Edward Timpson)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) and Kidsgrove on securing this debate. We have not met, but we are quite close neighbours and it is good to have another representative from our area speaking so passionately about an extremely important subject, which she rightly emphasised should exercise all our minds. We should be working as closely together as we possibly can to come up with the right solutions to all the problems society can throw at us, such as those she raises in this debate.

I think we can all agree that no child should go hungry. Like the hon. Lady, I have seen, both in my personal and professional life before politics, what can happen to children when that takes place, so I am in no doubt about the need for good nutrition and the vital role it plays in children’s development and health.

The Government want to give every child, regardless of background, the very best start in life. That approach is at the heart of our reforms to school meals. We have made real progress towards ensuring that all children are eating good, healthy food, which in turn will help them to concentrate in the classroom and support the healthy lifestyle we want to see.

The hon. Lady rightly pointed out that there is some developing research in this area, but considering how long this has been discussed—over many decades—there is still a paucity of research and that will need to be addressed so we can better understand the potential links between nutrition and educational attainment. I want to start by setting out the work being done by my Department to tackle this issue and we will then talk a little more widely about Government action in this area.

We published the school food plan, developed by independent food experts drawing on the views of teachers, cooks, caterers, nutritionists, parents, charities and volunteers. This has led to a practical action plan that is increasing the quality and take-up of school meals—which has been a long-standing problem—developing a whole-school food culture and exciting children about good food and cooking so that they can lead healthy lives.

As part of that plan, we have revised the school food standards so that they are easier for schools to understand and implement. They allow school cooks more creative freedom to adapt to the preferences of the children at their school, source seasonal or local food, take advantage of price fluctuations, or create dishes that suit their particular talents. Importantly, parents will more easily be able to know if the food served to their children meets the standards. Most crucially, they restrict unhealthy foods to ensure our children eat well.

I took the time to read the Kellogg’s report and it was interesting. One point it made is that although more money is being spent on food, the nutritional value is going down by virtue of the poor choices being made by parents for their children. We also need to tackle that, so children are eating nutritious meals.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for giving way; that is a convention not always observed in these debates. What is his view on the growing numbers of machines selling junk food? The name escapes me—

[Ruth Smeeth]

Vending machines.

[Catherine West]

Thank you. The number of vending machines in schools and hospitals seems to be growing. What is the Minister’s view on that?

[Edward Timpson]

We have set out in the school food plan a clear objective to make as much home-grown nutritious food available to children as possible. I am not going to gainsay the position of other Ministers in the Department of Health and elsewhere who have responsibility for these areas, but we need to look carefully at the proliferation of vending machines to ensure that there is no exploitation going on and that they are not undermining the overall principle that we have set out in the school food plan and the school food standards.

We have also reformed the national curriculum to include new content on food, nutrition and healthy eating and on how to cook a whole repertoire of dishes. For the first time, learning about food is statutory for every pupil up to the age of 14. The school fruit and vegetable scheme provides a daily piece of fruit or a vegetable on school days to key stage 1 children—typically aged four to six—in primary schools and nurseries attached to eligible primary schools in England. We have also extended the right to free meals during term time to include disadvantaged students in further education as well as children from low income families in schools.

More widely, our ambition for disadvantaged pupils to be successful during their school years and to achieve the highest possible levels of educational attainment is at the centre of our education reform programme. That is why we are committed to raising the bar among disadvantaged pupils as part of pushing up standards for everyone, so that no pupil is left behind. This is built on the knowledge of how important educational attainment is for improving their life chances.

The Wolf report, which was commissioned by the last Government, showed that English and maths skills were vital for labour market entry and continued to have a significant impact on career progression and pay. That is why we are committed to ensuring that more poor pupils achieve excellent grades at GCSE, attend the very best universities or go on to an apprenticeship that will lead to their gaining skilled employment, so that every child, regardless of their background, has an education that allows them to realise their full potential. Our reforms are working. More young people have got into work in the last year in this country than in the rest of the EU put together, and there are more than 1 million more pupils in England in good or outstanding schools than there were in 2010, with the attainment gap narrowing in the process.

As I said earlier, it is not just the Department for Education that has a vested interest in ensuring that all children, irrespective of their background, are protected from or lifted out of a childhood spent in poverty, including food poverty. That is why this Government want to work to eliminate child poverty, as did the last Labour Government, and to improve the life chances of every child. Our new approach, set out in the Welfare Reform and Work Bill, will incentivise the Government to focus on tackling the root causes of child poverty, not just the symptoms. Our new statutory life chances measures will drive continued clear action on work and education. This will make the biggest difference to disadvantaged children, now and in the future.

In reaching for that goal, we know that work is the best route out of poverty. Research shows us that around 75% of poor children living in families where both parents move into full employment leave poverty altogether. Economic growth and employment offer the best route to giving people a better future and to reducing poverty. As we have seen in the past year, we now have the fastest growth of any major advanced economy.

Trade Union Bill

Catherine West Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

I must plough on, but I will give way later.

The Bill provides that voting papers sent to union members and employers will state the details of the trade dispute, exactly what type of industrial action is proposed, and an indication of the time period in which that action will take place. This will ensure that members know exactly what they are voting for or against and allow them to make an informed decision.

One of the valuable roles performed by unions over the years has been to defend workers from abuse, bullying and harassment at the hands of managers. There is no place for such behaviour in the modern workplace, and I applaud anyone who stands up against it. But bosses are not the only culprits. The independent Carr report contained shocking accounts of appalling bullying and harassment directed at non-strikers by trade union members. There were threats that included details of where workers’ children go to school, and abusive text messages warning, “We know where you live.” Photographs of non-strikers were posted online in a bid to shame them. Workers who had failed to support industrial action reported being punished by colleagues who deliberately saddled them with antisocial shift patterns or isolated them in the workplace.

It is not acceptable for managers to harass and abuse trade union members who take lawful industrial action. Nor is it acceptable for strikers to treat those who choose to work in the same way. While such abuses are doubtless the actions of a tiny minority of trade unionists, they should never be allowed to happen without consequences. The Bill makes it clear that such intimidation has no place in the modern workplace.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Is it not the case that this is just another instance of the Tory party no longer being on the side of people’s rights? There are no more rights. There is no longer a right to social security, legal aid or access to employment tribunals. The Conservative party is becoming much more authoritarian and Labour Members do not like it. It is no longer the party of rights. It used to have a fine tradition of rights, but that is disappearing.

[Sajid Javid]

It is a case of a one nation Government standing up for all working people across the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christian Matheson]

rose—

[Catherine West]

rose—

[Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)]

rose—

[Catherine West]

rose—

[Alan Johnson]

I give way to my hon. Friend.

[Catherine West]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is one exception to that? In London, under a leader who sits in this House and who has always refused to meet the trade unions or treat them like human beings, we have had three times as many strikes as during the previous eight years under a Labour Mayor?

[Alan Johnson]

It just so happens that that particular Member was trying to intervene on me. I gladly give way to him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow that thoughtful speech from the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), particularly as he quoted Margaret Thatcher with approval.

The history of trade unions is an honourable one, arising in the late 19th century, when workers were suffering from widespread oppression. Throughout the late 19th and early 20th centuries, trade unions performed vital functions. It is worth remembering, of course, that many of those functions are now fulfilled by Parliament; it has legislated for a national minimum wage, provision for sickness and holiday payments, protection against unfair dismissal and so on. Therefore, many of the injustices that trade unions quite rightly fought against at the outset have now been dealt with by Parliament. I want to emphasise that the right to strike and the right for trade unions to operate are in no way threatened by the Bill. The right to strike will still exist, as it absolutely should.

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough and the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) both asked the question, “What is the purpose of this legislation?” Its principal purpose is to protect people who suffer when strikes take place. Let me quote a lady from Stoke-on-Trent who runs a hairdressing salon and has a child:

“It isn’t fair on parents, who could be missing out on a day’s pay by not working when teachers strike.”

Strikes have a profound effect on other members of society, which is why it is appropriate to put in place a reasonable threshold before strike action can be taken. For example, exactly a year ago Unison’s NHS staff voted for strike action on a turnout of 16% and with 11% of the membership voting in favour. I do not think that mandate is strong enough to merit inconveniencing tens of thousands of patients and potentially having operations postponed.

Furthermore, since 2008 there have been 26 strikes on the London underground—I am a London MP, and I have lived in this city all my life. Anyone who claims that the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers does not strike lightly has not tried to travel in this city during one of those 26 strikes. I point out that 19 of those strikes would not have happened under this legislation.

[Catherine West]

But does the hon. Gentleman accept that those strikes have tripled since the Tories took over in London in 2008? It is an absolute disgrace that the Mayor of London has never sat down and met the trade unions and treated them as though they were equal partners or human beings in the same race.

[Chris Philp]

I think that it is very unfortunate that the RMT has chosen to be so confrontational. As my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) pointed out earlier, even his predecessor, Ken Livingstone, met RMT officials only once, and he insulted them in the meeting.

Questions were asked earlier about the mandate for this legislation. I remind those Members who oppose the Bill that a YouGov poll conducted only four weeks ago found that 53% of Londoners are in favour of these measures and only 26% are opposed. Moreover, I challenge the assertion made by some Opposition Members that union activity does not stoke excessive strike action. It is instructive to compare days lost due to strike action in the private sector, where union membership is relatively low, with days lost in the public sector, where union membership is more widespread. We find that last year the number was 40 times higher in the public sector than it was in the private sector, despite the fact that terms and conditions—pay, holidays and so on—are, if anything, slightly better in the public sector.

I would like briefly to address the issue of facility time. The TaxPayers Alliance—[Interruption]—which clearly commands widespread support on the Opposition Benches, has calculated that the effective subsidy to unions from the public purse as a result of facility time is £108 million every year. The unions do not necessarily need that money—they have plenty of money to make political donations with—and it is not reasonable for the public purse to fund what is often party political activity.

In conclusion, I think that the Bill is a reasonable, moderate measure that will protect people from the often very disruptive effects of strike action.

Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

Catherine West Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ms Ahmed-Sheikh]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend’s position in relation to Unison. I am about to come to Unite in a similar respect.

In February this year, SNP Members of the Scottish Parliament, led by our First Minster, signed up to a pledge proposed by Unite, which stated, amongst other clauses, that

“TTIP must not give current or future US investors new rights that they could use to sue any level of government, public authority or NHS organisation because of their policies or actions relating to public healthcare.”

My colleagues and I absolutely support that pledge. Of course we welcome the recent developments announced by the Commission in May, but there is still some distance to travel if the final agreement is to gain our full support. This Government must clearly state to our European partners that the UK will veto TTIP unless we receive an explicit exemption for the NHS and Scottish Water as part of a general public sector exemption.

We are very proud of our public services. Governments in Scotland, the UK and beyond must therefore be able to manage those services for the greater good without fear that their democratic mandate might be overruled in the courts.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Ms Ahmed-Sheikh]

I will make some progress.

I hope that the Minister can start to set out today how this Government are making progress in delivering the kind of deal that Scottish MPs and the Scottish Government can support and the current timetable for agreement and ratification. In particular, I hope he takes this opportunity to set out how Parliament will be able to scrutinise the final proposal before it is ratified. We must have a full debate on this important matter.

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership undoubtedly has great potential to help grow the Scottish economy. We must ensure that that is not undermined by unwarranted and damaging provisions that put our public services at risk.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Boles]

I want to make a bit of progress, but I will give way later if I have time.

The hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire referred to concerns, which have certainly been expressed to me, about the potential impact—or the alleged potential impact—on our national health service. All of us in the House have a responsibility to provide our constituents with the facts as we best understand them, and not to fuel scare stories. I therefore think it important to say that absolutely nothing in the proposed deal would threaten the public nature of our public services, and, in particular, our national health service.

[Catherine West]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Boles]

No, I will not.

The hon. Lady referred to, and I will now repeat, some of the words of the European Commissioner for Trade, Cecilia Malmström, who wrote to a Minister in January about the NHS. She said:

“member states do not have to open public health services to competition from private providers, nor do they have to outsource services to private providers”.

She also said:

“member states are free to change their policies and bring back outsourced services back into the public sector whenever they choose to do so, in a manner respecting property rights… it makes no difference whether a member state already allows some services to be outsourced to private providers, or not”.

The European Union negotiating position for the TTIP deal is to ensure that EU countries will be free to decide how they run their public health systems. The NHS—our NHS: the Scottish NHS, the English NHS, and the NHS in all parts of the United Kingdom—is not at risk from this agreement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Boles]

I shall come to the point about debating it, but let me first deal with the hon. Lady’s point about an opt-out.

Of course it would always be great for the text of any agreement to contain all the reassurances that are required, but, even before yesterday’s vote, the Government were entirely satisfied that the position regarding TTIP would not threaten the public status of our NHS or other public services. We were entirely satisfied that there was absolutely no intention on the part of the Commission in negotiating the agreement, or on the part of any other EU member state, to allow the status of either our public services or theirs to be threatened. We are satisfied with the substance, although I acknowledge that more reassurance for our constituents would be welcome if it could possibly be provided. I fear that, to some extent, the hon. Lady praised 38 Degrees, but I would not be so kind. I think that, all too often, that organisation whips up a great many ungrounded fears. It is important for us, as Members of Parliament, to try to reassure our constituents.

[Catherine West]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Boles]

I must move on. I am afraid that there are a number of issues to be discussed.

The hon. Lady referred to—and the right hon. Member for Gordon also dwelt on—some of the questions relating to the ability that corporate interests might be given to challenge regulations. I want to be very clear about what will be involved. The ISDS tribunals will be able to grant compensation for actions and decisions by Governments according to regulations that investors can show to have been unfair or conducted in an undue way. They will not be able to overturn, amend or eradicate any regulations that Governments bring in legitimately.

As a believer in the rule of law and as a practitioner of that rule of law in other phases of his life, the right hon. Gentleman will understand that it is always important that every decision by Government, every rule and every law that we pass can be challenged in court or in proper tribunals by those interests that are affected by them. What matters is that ultimately the responsibility for changing or amending those rules rests with Parliaments, and there is nothing in the agreement that would alter that fact.

Education and Adoption Bill

Catherine West Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Tristram Hunt]

My hon. Friend makes a very valuable point about accountability procedures, and that is certainly something we will look to take forward in Committee.

We are happy to debate those clauses and other issues in Committee, but glaring deficiencies elsewhere necessitate our reasoned amendment: the shoddy, slapdash incomplete proposed legislation placed before the House today is unworthy of a Second Reading. When the first word of the first clause on the first page of the Bill—“coasting”—is yet to be defined by the Government, they are showing an extraordinary discourtesy to this House. Such is the extension of the Secretary of State’s powers over schools deemed to be “coasting” that I would have thought they knew what they were talking about. Today, for all the lofty principles, we still have no workable legal definition.

As it stands, “coasting” could mean anything: Ofsted results, progress data, attainment scores. In fact, it could just as easily relate to any passing whim of the Secretary of State. Too many children swinging on chairs? Coasting. Too many kids studying the humanities, of which we know the Secretary of State disapproves? Coasting. Too many teenagers aspiring to apprenticeships? Coasting. We just do not know what the answer is, but what we do know is that this is no way in which to approach the serious job of reforming our schools system.

I fear that there will be a confrontation between what the Department for Education regards as coasting and what Ofsted regards as a good school. If Ofsted has classified a school as good and the Department says that it is coasting, where does that leave the schools inspector?

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

The definition of “coasting” is not the only thing that is missing from the Bill. A number of other things are missing from it, including references to addressing the teacher recruitment crisis or the school places crisis. Moreover, the Bill makes hardly any mention of parents, although those two issues are very much on their minds. Why do two out of five newly qualified teachers leave the profession within five years, and why are parents of three and four-year-olds so anxious about school places?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

I recommend to the hon. Lady the very good debate we had on this matter in Westminster Hall just before the end of the previous Parliament. I spoke for the Opposition and said we absolutely support fairer funding. If she would like to consult that debate—it is not the subject under discussion today—she will see our position in more detail.

We have had a very good debate. I will deal principally with the education part of the Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) dealt with the clauses on adoption, but there are a few points in relation to adoption that I would like to put on the record. I understand that the solution put forward in the Bill is extremely similar to the one the Government withdrew last year when the measures were put in front of the House of Lords. If I am wrong about that, I am sure the Minister will correct us in Committee, but it does seem that this is perhaps a second bite of the cherry. We will be interested to know from Ministers, if that is the case, why they have come back with this having withdrawn similar proposals extremely recently.

We are concerned about the impact on small specialist agencies and we are also worried about those children who may not be suitable for adoption. I am disappointed that the Bill has so little to say about special guardianship, kinship care, grandparents and long-term fostering. We will want to take up those issues in Committee.



I hope that Members on both sides of the House agree that, fundamentally, all of us—heads, teachers, support staff, governors, parents and even politicians—want the best for our children. I was going to say “politicians, and even parents”, because parents’ rights have been rubbed out by the Bill, but I decided against that in favour of trying to try to establish a point of consensus at the outset of my speech. If all of us want the best for our children, however, why do the Government consistently pursue paths that are not based on evidence of what is best for our children’s education? We have reached an extraordinary state of affairs. A Bill that was cobbled together during the two weeks after the election has been presented as if it were the answer to all the educational problems in the country, although it patently is not. As the Education Committee said earlier this year,

“the Government should stop exaggerating”.

The Bill has been so rushed and so inadequately drafted that it does not even provide a definition of its central term. Its first clause, on page 1, permits intervention in “Coasting schools”. We agree with the proposition that everyone should seek to tackle underperformance in schools, even schools that may be superficially performing well. Indeed, we championed it in government through, for example, the London Challenge and national challenge programmes. We introduced sponsored academies because we saw them as one way in which entrenched under- performance could be tackled, although not the only way. However, the Government have included the word “coasting” in the Bill without being able to tell anyone what it means. They have not been able to supply draft regulations to explain it in time for this debate, and I understand that they have now announced, through the usual channels, that they will not be able to supply such regulations in time for the start of the Committee stage. Perhaps we should rename this the Adoption and Education Bill, given that Ministers will have to deal with it back to front in Committee owing to their inability to provide a definition of “coasting” in time.

This is no way in which to make law that affects the education of millions of children throughout the country. A Bill should not be introduced when the Government cannot even explain or give a definition of its central term. I am reminded of a scene in the film “The Wrong Trousers”, starring Wallace and Gromit, when Gromit has to lay the track when the train is already racing along apace. If the Government cannot define “coasting” at the point when we are debating the Bill in the Chamber, they obviously deserve their own “inadequate” rating.

Why does the Bill have nothing to say about academies? Everyone who is involved in education knows that a school is a school, and that its success is built not on the nameplate on the sign outside, but on the quality of the leadership and teaching within. If the answer to turning around a failing school is always to make it an academy, what is the answer to turning around a failing academy? As the Secretary of State acknowledged recently, there are many of them—145, at the latest count—including IES Breckland, which is managed by a for-profit provider, and which has been deemed inadequate for more than a year without its sponsor being removed. So much for the right hon. Lady’s statement that

“a day spent in special measures is a day too long where a child’s education is concerned.”

That is not the case, it would seem, when the child attends an academy that is run by a favoured foreign edu-business. A fundamental flaw at the heart of the Government’s approach is that they do not even entertain that question in the Bill.

Why do the Government not listen to the Conservative councillor David Simmonds, the chairman of the Local Government Association’s children and young people board? He recently said:

“Hundreds of schools, often in disadvantaged areas, are being turned around thanks to the intervention of local councils.

It’s clear that strong leadership, outstanding classroom teaching and effective support staff and governors are the crucial factors in transforming standards in struggling schools.

We want to see bureaucratic barriers that have for a long time prevented councils from intervening swept away…We need to ensure that we focus our resources on ensuring there are enough outstanding school leaders, rather than on structures and legal status, as it is this which makes the difference we all want to see.”

That sounds to me like common sense from a Conservative councillor at the sharp end trying to deliver a quality local education, rather than the proclamations of remote Conservative Ministers who take their cue from right-wing think tanks and policy wonks with an ideological axe to grind.

[Catherine West]

Does my hon. Friend agree that Councillor Simmonds has also added to the debate about school places, particularly in London, where he is a representative? So many parents raise with us daily, in surgeries and emails, their worries about their three and four-year-olds. Indeed, we also need to be predicting that when they turn 13 there will be a secondary school crisis.

[Kevin Brennan]

I agree with that and say to my hon. Friend that teacher recruitment and the problem she raises are serious lacunas in the Bill.

The comments I cited sound like common sense from a Conservative councillor because this Bill is not only severely undercooked, but breathtakingly illiberal and in direct opposition to the Government’s professed desire to devolve power to communities. Let us be clear about this: the Bill seeks not only to extend the power of the state, as exercised by the Secretary of State, who is not even listening, to impose its will locally, but to remove the ability of local communities to object to, or even to make representations against, the exercise of that state power. We can see that she does not like to listen because she will not listen to local communities or even to the debate in this House. It is said that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, but what of power wielded by the state without even the right to make representations against its use, which in addition creates a duty to conform, comply, co-operate and promote the exercise of that state power? How have we reached a state of affairs in Conservative education policy where that is regarded as democratically acceptable? It would seem that not only does the Prime Minister not know the meaning of the words “Magna Carta”, as we saw on David Letterman’s TV show, but, as Tony Hancock might have put it, the poor Hungarian peasant girl did after all “die in vain”.

This is a horrible little Bill in so far as it extends to education. It is more of an election slogan than a piece of genuine education statute, written in a rush, out of a need to do something rather than the need to do the right thing. It could be so different: we could be recognising that real school improvement is based on the sort of approach taken by Sir David Brailsford, who took the Great Britain Olympic cycling team to such great heights. It could have been based on teamwork, collaboration, and a passion for excellence, success and the accumulation of marginal gains, not on a fetish with structures and policies that are unfounded in evidence. Perhaps we could have an educational equivalent of NICE—the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence—and have a national institute for clear evidence in education policy, which would put a stop to the educational quackery of Ministers, which leads to the empty “exaggeration” so heavily criticised earlier this year by the Education Committee. Then, perhaps, we could agree with a vision based on that insight I mentioned at the outset, which is that deep down we all want the best for our children.

We should therefore have a vision where we promote partnership and collaboration to raise standards, with an inspection system where quality inspectors provide challenge and support, rather than having low-quality private contractors. We could have a system where standards trump structures and where every child matters. Despite the claim in the explanatory notes that the Bill intends

“to improve education for all children”,

those in coasting or failing academies are ignored by the Bill. We could have a vision where: parents are listened to; teachers are trusted; school admissions are made fairer; special needs are taken seriously; genuine social mobility is promoted; more than the one pathway to success—GCSE, A-level and then university—is valued and promoted; more than data matter; and exams are not used as a tool to narrow education but as an instrument to accredit broad and balanced learning. We could have a system that believes in more than teaching to the test.

To be an educator or a teacher is an incredible privilege. It is one that I was fortunate enough to enjoy for many years. It is a very hard job. It is much harder, believe it or not, than being a Member of Parliament, and it is so much more than what is envisaged in this dreary Bill. To be a legislator is also a privilege, and we can do much better than this.

Oral Answers to Questions

Catherine West Excerpts

Monday 15th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Does the Minister regret the closure of 700 children’s centres when they could have helped fulfil the Government’s 30-hour pledge?

[Mr Gyimah]

As I said in answer to a previous question, 142 children’s centres have closed, not 700, but the most important thing is the number of families being reached, and record numbers of families are accessing children’s centres up and down the country.