National Living Wage

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 18th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Joan Ryan]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Thirteen Members wish to speak after the right hon. Lady, and we are already well into a good debate, so I am worried that we might be squeezing the time for other Members.

[Joan Ryan]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I take your point.

Certainly, the national living wage does not mean that that is all that employers can pay. Bradgate Bakery, like B&Q, found an opportunity to save money, so it has changed staff terms and conditions to phase out double pay for Sundays by 2019. That means that while employees on the national minimum wage earned £13.78 per hour on a Sunday last month, by 2019 they will earn just £9 per hour. That is the national living wage according to Bradgate Bakery. Extra pay for night shifts, Saturdays and overtime are also being scaled back. In sum, Bradgate workers are being sold a lie: they are told that their pay is increasing, but what the Government are giving with one hand, Bradgate is taking with another. According to one very worried worker who approached my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden, these cuts will affect the whole range of shifts that run in the factories. That means that by 2018 a production operative on night shift will be paid £2,778 less a year, while a night shift team leader will be paid £344 less.

I want to make a few things clear. First, increasing the minimum wage is not a bad thing. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden, myself, and indeed all hon. Friends, were proud to be part of the Labour Government who introduced it almost 20 years ago, and we wholeheartedly support moves to increase it. Our workers work hard and deserve every penny that they are entitled to. We quite agree with the Chancellor that Britain does deserve a pay rise.

Secondly, despite what they say, businesses can cope with the increase in the minimum wage. Every minimum wage rate rise since its introduction has been greeted with predictions of doom and gloom by a minority of employers, but their dire warnings have not come true.

Thirdly, we all know that businesses will tend to pay their workers less than they actually can, because that is what profit-making is all about, but businesses should not be cutting staff pay via terms and conditions to offset the costs. Despite what they say, there are alternatives: they could improve productivity and invest in the skills and talents of their employees; they could cut back shareholder pay just a little, so that those who work hardest get the remuneration they truly deserve; or, following the Chancellor’s suggestion, they could use the further 1% cut in corporation tax announced last month to fund the increase in the minimum wage.

Fourthly, I have discussed B&Q and Bradgate Bakery today, but there is an industry-wide problem. Huge supermarket retailers, such as Morrisons, cut their staff pay months ago, to little media attention. For instance, while hourly pay at Morrisons has now increased to £8.20, the firm simultaneously scrapped a raft of pay perks to save money. Only last week, we read reports of how popular, thriving café businesses, such as EAT and Caffè Nero, are cutting free staff lunches to claw back costs. That will save them about £3.60 per employee per day—less than the cost of one of their toasted paninis. According to media reports today, it looks like Waitrose will also be scrapping Sunday and overtime rates for new workers. This is all part of a worrying trend.

I am sure that my hon. Friends will agree that what we are asking for is not easy, but we truly believe that there is a precedent for cross-party support on this issue. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden was delighted to receive the support of the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) during their “Channel 4 News” interview on the subject last week. He joined her in calling for employers to guarantee that no one loses out. During the interview, my hon. Friend said:

“Any Member who wants to join me on calling for action from employers and the Government, from whichever side of the House they may be, is a friend of mine.”

The truth is that securing meaningful change is not beyond the Government’s ability. If the Chancellor promised everyone a pay rise, then everyone should receive one. If he promised that the Government would be radical on strengthening wages, then he needs to deliver radical change. A thriving economy is not built on low pay and unscrupulous employers; it is built on a proper day’s pay for a hard day’s work. It is time the Government gave hard-working people—the same people all political parties claim to represent—the outcome they truly deserve.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. May I suggest that people use up to seven minutes? However, if you start making interventions, I will have to drop the time later. It is up to Members, but I do want to get everybody in.

Schools White Paper

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 13th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. It may assist the House if I explain that, as this is not an allotted Opposition day—in other words, it is not one of the 20 Opposition days required under Standing Orders—the usual procedure governing the handling of amendments does not apply. After the Opposition spokesman has spoken and moved the Opposition motion, the Minister will be called to move the Government amendment. The debate will then take place on the question that the amendment be made. At the end of the debate, the question on the Government amendment will be put, followed by the question that the main motion, amended or not as may be the case, be agreed to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Before I call the Secretary of State to move the amendment, I will let Members know that I will be imposing a five-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) on initiating this debate. Will the Secretary of State address what for Brentford and Isleworth in the Borough of Hounslow are the three most pressing problems: first, the recruitment and retention of good quality teachers, particularly in EBacc subjects; secondly, the desperate need to build sufficient secondary school places in time for 2017—unfortunately the Education Funding Agency is the cause of that delay; and finally, the need to ensure that our children have the skills for the local employment market when they leave? Mr Deputy Speaker—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We have got the message.

[Nicky Morgan]

I am delighted that the hon. Lady is engaging in issues that are of real concern to her constituents, and she is right to do so. I do not know whether she has had a chance to read all the White Paper, but it contains many of the answers, and I will come to on to talk about teacher recruitment and career development in a moment. This Government have so far spent £23 billion on building new accommodation for school places, and we have created 600,000 more school places since 2010.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nicky Morgan]

Let me just remind the hon. Lady what her motion says. [Interruption.] Opposition Members do not want to listen.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

If we are going to ask a question, let us hear the answer.

[Nicky Morgan]

I do not think they want to hear the answer, because they do not want to hear the clarification. [Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I want to hear your answer, Secretary of State. Come on!

--- Later in debate ---

[Nicky Morgan]

I am going to make some progress.

It is important that hon. Members hear what is in the White Paper. We are outlining reforms of how teachers are trained and accredited, which, alongside the establishment of a new college of teaching and a new framework for professional development, will help to put teaching where it belongs—on a par with other professions such as medicine and law. It outlines our commitment—[Interruption.] I am not going to give way, because I am going to set out what is in the White Paper for the benefit of hon. Members, some of whom on the Opposition Front Bench clearly have not read it. It outlines our commitment—[Interruption.] I have just said I am not going to give way. It outlines our commitment—[Interruption.] Honestly, Mr Deputy Speaker, I think they are deaf. The White Paper outlines our commitment to make sure that school funding is fairly distributed—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I want to hear both sides. If we cannot hear it, what about the people who are listening out there? Let us try to keep it in order, because this is a very important debate that affects all our constituents, whichever side of the argument we are on.

[Nicky Morgan]

As I was saying, the White Paper outlines reforms of how teachers are trained and it outlines our commitment to make sure that school funding is fairly distributed across the counties, ending the gross inequities and distortions, so that heads and parents can have the confidence that the same child with the same characteristics and the same costs receives the same level of funding. It reaffirms our commitment to ensure that every single child reaches their potential, from stretching the most able to supporting those who, for whatever reason, have fallen out of mainstream education. It proposes a bold new strategy, which I think all Members should welcome, to tackle areas of chronic underperformance through new educational achievement areas that will target school-led improvement support from national leaders of education, teaching schools and the national teaching service in the most needed areas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nicky Morgan]

Something else that the Opposition have deliberately failed to understand is that this policy is fully funded. We have over £500 million available in this Parliament to build capacity, including recruiting—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. In fairness to the Secretary of State, she has given way a lot. If she wants to give way, that is fine, but do not keep clamouring and shouting because I want to get you all in and I will not achieve that.

[Nicky Morgan]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

As I say, we have over £500 million available in this Parliament to build capacity, including recruiting excellent sponsors and encouraging the development of strong multi-academy trusts. As ever, however, the back-of-a-fag-packet calculation that the hon. Member for Manchester Central seems so fond of, and that was put out by the Labour party press office, uses grossly inaccurate costings—in one case, for example, erroneously calculating that the average cost of academisation will be £66,000. In fact, costs per academy have fallen from over £250,000 in 2010-11 to £32,000 today. The cost per academy will continue to fall significantly in the years ahead as we move towards full academisation.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Berry]

I am glad that Members have been waiting for this. In Kingston, we have the best GCSE results in the country, bar the Isles of Scilly, and only one of the schools is not an academy. It is legitimate to have a debate about whether that model should be mandated throughout the country. Does my right hon. Friend agree, however, that whatever the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) misrepresented, what she did not misrepresent—[Interruption.] I am saying that she did not misrepresent—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: I know he wants to withdraw that immediately.

[James Berry]

What she did not misrepresent was the guff about asset stripping, privatisation and profit that many of her colleagues have engaged in.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Mr Berry, we are not being helpful to each other. You are withdrawing the comment about misrepresentation. I think you have got your question across. I am going to hear the Secretary of State. You have withdrawn the remark. That is great. Thank you.

[Nicky Morgan]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is passionate about this programme and about raising standards in schools in his constituency. I join him in that.

Let me refute another falsehood in the Opposition’s motion—that we will force all schools to be part of multi-academy trusts. Schools will not be forced to join a trust with other schools. As it happens, many schools want to join a trust because they can see the benefits. Two thirds of current academies have chosen to be part of multi-academy trusts, and of course outstanding schools can set up their own MATs. But to be absolutely clear, we will never make any successful school, large or small, that is capable of operating alone, join a trust.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Gerald Kaufman]

Of course.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. May I just say that we are very tight for time in this debate?

[Ruth Cadbury]

What many of us in areas with a growing population were looking for in a White Paper was the ability to bring on new schools quickly. In five years, we have not been able in Hounslow to deliver the community school that is needed. Does my right hon. Friend agree that despite the ability of faith schools and some other academy trusts to develop new schools, the community is excluded?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. We are now on a five-minute limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Carmichael]

Because we want all schools to be able to be autonomous, to work with other schools and to form relationships which are right for their pupils. We always talk about the worst schools or the best schools, but we should focus on those in the middle. They are the ones that provide most of the education and tend to coast if that is allowed to occur. Too many local authorities have not intervened quickly enough or robustly enough when the situation demanded it. That is the context in which the Secretary of State correctly referred to interim executive boards.

On parent governors, the Government are not saying, as I understand it, that there will no longer be any parent governors. There are two points to make. The obvious one is that they are not being outlawed. Secondly, everyone can be a parent governor. It is not necessary to be a parent in order to be a non-parent governor. That is important. The idea that parent governors are an exclusive source of wisdom may well be right in some schools, but not in all.

One of the reasons why I set up the all-party group on school leadership and governance was that I was concerned that we did not have sufficient skills or all the skills needed for a governing body. We talked about the role of stakeholders, including parent governors. There was general agreement in that group, of which the NGA is the secretariat, that skills were the most important thing to recruit to a governing body. It is therefore right to talk in the terms that we are using.

I want quickly to mention regional schools commissioners, because they will play a really important role in this. The Education Committee discussed that role with the Department through a formal inquiry, and we will continue to look at it, because as the academies programme develops, of course, we will need to see more scale and capacity through the regional schools commissioners. I put it on the agenda right now that that needs to be considered in the medium term.

Finally, fairer funding is a critical part of the story, because it will give schools more flexibility and ensure that those that have suffered so badly in the past as a result of underfunding get a fairer slice of the funding. Schools should be encouraged to grow when the demand is there, and I think the Department is doing that. Last but not least, we have to think about catchment areas. One of the things that I find stultifying my area is the county council’s refusal to be a bit more open-minded about catchment areas and the ability of parents to go past one school or whatever as they choose. Those are the points that I wanted to make, and I think that the Education Committee is right—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I call Marion Fellows.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

I will press on, and then I will give way—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Members may think that this noise is not loud, but it is very loud when you are in the Chair trying to listen to the shadow Chancellor. The problem is that it does not do this Chamber any good in the eyes of the public when they cannot hear either.

[John McDonnell]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.}

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Did somebody wish to comment? Okay, we will carry on.

[John McDonnell]

Let me assure Members that I will give way, but let me proceed a bit further.

As I have said, perhaps the fall in productivity is unsurprising, because productivity is linked to business investment, which should be driving the recovery, but which plunged in the last quarter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Are you sure it is?

[Mr MacNeil]

Fairly sure, Mr Deputy Speaker. This debate is about schools in this country. Clearly, “this country” is not the UK—it is England. This debate does not apply to Scotland. That is not made clear, and in the days of English votes for English laws, it should be clear.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

That is not a point of order.

[Nicky Morgan]

We owed it to our young people to tackle the soft bigotry of low expectations and to give them the education they deserve: an education that will help them to fulfil every ounce of their potential; an education with knowledge at its core, even if that does include the shadow Chancellor’s greatest influences—self-confessed—of Lenin and Trotsky. This Budget will provide the resources to translate into reality the vision for the future of our education system in the schools White Paper that I will outline later today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you can give me some guidance. I understood that when a Minister had a major announcement to make on policy, as I think the Secretary of State just said she had about education policy, they are supposed to come to the Chamber and make it first before it is reported elsewhere. Why has she not done that as part of her speech?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Of course, all statements of policy come through this Chamber.

[Nicky Morgan]

Let me just remind the hon. Gentleman that I am standing here and giving the House information about the White Paper. It is kind of him to allow me the opportunity to talk again about the White Paper that we are publishing today, setting out our vision of the school system. He can also read the written statement that I have laid before the House.

Enterprise Bill [Lords]

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I advise Members, before the Front-Bench team come in, that there will be a seven-minute limit after Hannah Bardell.

Childcare Bill [Lords]

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 25th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I remind the House that although all Members may speak in the debate, only Members representing constituencies in England may vote on the consent motion.

Resolved,

That the Committee consents to the following certified clauses of the Childcare Bill [Lords] and certified amendment made to the Bill:

Clauses certified under Standing Order No. 83L(2) as relating exclusively to England and being within devolved legislative competence

Clauses 3 and 5 of the Bill as amended in Committee (Bill 107);

Amendments certified under Standing Order No. 83L(4) as relating exclusively to England

Amendment 3 made in Committee to Clause 2 of the Bill as introduced (Bill 84), which is Clause 1(5) of the Bill as amended in Committee (Bill 107).—(Mr Gyimah.)

The occupant of the Chair left the Chair to report the decision of the Committee (Standing Order No. 83M(6)).

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair; decision reported.

Third Reading

--- Later in debate ---

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I might have misunderstood, but when last autumn we discussed the new certification process for English votes for English laws, it was my understanding that it would be used only rarely. Since the House returned from the Christmas recess, however, we have used it on the Housing and Planning Bill, on a statutory instrument last week and on the Childcare Bill this evening. Have you, or has the Speaker’s Office, had any indication of whether this dreadful procedure will become routine, or will it be used only on rare occasions—all the rare occasions having occurred this month?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

The trouble is it depends on the Bills. Standing Orders dictate when the procedure is used. We could go a long time without it being used or it could be used every day. I am not sure. The procedures are laid down in Standing Orders, but the hon. Lady has now put her point on the record.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Sir Edward, are you sure it is a point of order? Last time you promised me it was, but it was not.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I am sometimes a bit naughty.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I would not say sometimes.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

The hon. Lady should not get too worried, because EVEL will not change a single part of a single Bill in this or any other Parliament. There is an overall Conservative majority in this one, and, as all the other parties are opposed to it, if we do not have a majority next time, they will cancel it.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Thank you, Sir Edward, for that non-point of order. I was absolutely correct: you are naughty.

Childcare Bill [Lords]

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 25th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gyimah]

Mr Deputy Speaker, this is a novel—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am sorry. You are winding up the debate, so you will have a chance to come back to the hon. Lady, but I am sure that she will give way, as she has been very generous so far. At this moment though she has given way to Helen Goodman.

[Helen Goodman]

My hon. Friend is pointing out that, according to the Chancellor, to qualify for this free childcare, a parent needs to be working 16 hours. Coincidentally, I found out that Asda employs 30% of its people on less than 16 hours a week, and they are paid less than the living wage, because they are on the minimum wage. That is probably the case in supermarkets across the land. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of women here.

Compulsory Emergency First Aid Education (State-funded Secondary Schools) Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Friday 20th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Rest assured, I do not need congratulating and we will certainly get into this debate—not in Latin, but in English.

[Philip Davies]

I am not capable of conducting this in Latin, Mr Deputy Speaker—some would say I am not able to conduct it in English. I am getting sidetracked again by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), and I hope you appreciate that it is certainly not of my doing.

The flavour of most private Members’ Bills that come before the House is that they are backed by a worthy sentiment, but are not really fit for purpose when given any great scrutiny. I fear that we are in that situation today. What we have been offered by a number of Members is what we normally get in this place on private Members’ Bills, which is a painless panacea. Politicians will always offer a painless panacea. With this Bill, I have heard that we can save lives, save money, save time and save absolutely anything. It has been said that there are no concerns and no downsides to this Bill, which will stipulate that it is compulsory for schools to provide first aid education. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), I have spoken to the schools in my constituency, and I wish to share some of the feedback that they have given to me.

If this Bill is so easy for schools to implement—it is said that it will save time, save money and save lives—then there is absolutely nothing to stop them introducing first aid courses now as part of the existing curriculum. We have heard that already today, and we have heard that many schools already do that. Why on earth would we need to make compulsory something that is so wonderful and that has no downsides? Surely we can just sit back and wait for every school to implement it themselves.

One thing I always say is that we should trust the people who are doing things every day. They tend to be the ones who know the best about what goes on and what works. When I worked for Asda, I found that it was the checkout operators who were the best people to ask about what was going wrong or right in the store, because they saw it every day with their own eyes. I certainly believe in trusting the professionals. My father was a teacher for that matter, so I am all for trusting teachers to get on and do their job. I do not really want the Government to be sticking their nose in at every single turn, trying to lecture them every five minutes about what they should be doing when they are perfectly capable of making those decisions for themselves.

If we think that we have recruited the right people to be teachers, then we have absolutely nothing to fear from leaving them to get on and do their job. If we feel that we have recruited the wrong teachers and that we need to lecture them every five minutes about what they should be doing, the problem is in the recruitment process. We should not need to look over their shoulder all the time, telling them what they should and should not be doing. I fear that we have made that particular mistake with this Bill.

I should make something very clear now, because, doubtless, Opposition Members will try to misconstrue my remarks. First aid, as everyone has acknowledged, is a very important life skill. I encourage as many people as possible to learn that skill. I am, and remain, a supporter of first aid, and certainly do not think that it is unimportant. I do not want to prevent anybody from learning first aid if they wish to learn it. I want people to have that opportunity.

Every year, there are 5.5 million attendees at A&E departments, 3 million of whom have the types of accident and injury that first aid treatment could have helped. For example, there are about 2,600 open wound injuries, 2,400 bone injuries, about 40 incidents of choking and more than 290 injuries from burns. Every year, about 66,000 die from heart attacks and seizures. They are all compelling statistics that endorse the increased use of first aid within society. Indeed, those statistics seem a valuable reason to encourage more members of society to learn first aid, but they do not in themselves justify the reason why first aid should become compulsory in the school curriculum, and that is what I wish to focus on today.

This Bill is not starting out from here. In the previous Parliament, Julie Hilling, the former Member for Bolton West, introduced a very similar Bill as a ten-minute rule Bill, which provided amendments to the Education Act 2002. She also brought in an amendment during the Committee stage of the Education Bill to make provision for teaching emergency life support skills in the national curriculum. The response of the then Minister for Schools, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), highlighted some of the same reservations that should be drawn to this debate today. He said:

“I agree that emergency life support skills can have an immensely positive impact on pupils’ families as well as schools and the wider community. It is encouraging to hear about the excellent work in schools…I am also aware of the invaluable support that organisations such as the British Heart Foundation and St John Ambulance offer individual schools or groups of schools to enrich curriculum work. I applaud them for their important work, but I do not agree that making emergency life support skills a statutory part of the curriculum is the right approach.”

I absolutely endorse what he said. He went on to say:

“We are clear that the national curriculum should set out the essential knowledge and understanding that all children should be expected to acquire in the course of their school lives. It is for teachers to design the wider curriculum in the way that meets the needs of their pupils, taking account of the views of parents, the wider community and local circumstances.”––[Official Report, Education Public Bill Committee, 5 April 2011; c. 990.]

That is the nub of my argument today. It should be a schools’ prerogative to incorporate extra-curricular activities, such as first aid education, into the school calendar, and they should not be forced to substitute other lessons to fit them in. That has been confirmed more recently—

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I do not intend to focus on the work of St John’s Ambulance in my speech. Obviously, I cannot cover everything. Perhaps he might be able to do so, Mr Deputy Speaker, if he is lucky enough to catch your eye later on.

What is also important is the time factor. We have heard different times bandied about as to how much training would be needed to fulfil the obligations in the Bill. I am still not entirely sure about it. Half an hour was the minimum that I have heard. It is important to note that my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), who did an awful lot of work in this area before he was deservedly promoted to ministerial ranks, asked a question about the 30,000 cardiac arrests that occur outside hospitals where only one in 10 people survives. He wanted to meet the Minister to discuss the fact that when countries give two-hour sessions of emergency life-saving skills, survival rates often increase by up to 50%. That suggests to me that, for this to be worthwhile, 30 minutes will never be enough. My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray), who has knowledge of the subject, made that point in an earlier intervention. It strikes me that, in order to get a Bill through Parliament, we will be told that a session needs to be only half an hour, but the moment the Bill becomes enacted, the schools will be told that half an hour is not good enough and that they will need to do an hour. When an hour is not good enough, they will be told to do two hours, and then four hours. Schools will never know where the time commitment will end.

Under the provisions of the Bill, as I understand it, the Secretary of State can make regulations in this area, so they will be free to say to schools, “Well, we have looked at this, and half an hour is not enough. You need to do more.” We are not giving schools a commitment to teach as they see fit, but potentially lining up for them much longer times they will have to spend teaching these skills if the half an hour that we have been told about proves to be as insufficient and inadequate as my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall has suggested.



As I said, teachers are best placed to decide on these matters. We should not force them to do anything that is not right for them or their school. We are constantly moving towards an overly prescribed curriculum. That is unhelpful to teachers, who must teach these lessons, and to students, who have to try to juggle more subjects in a limited time. This happens time and again in Parliament. When I was on the Opposition Benches— some might argue that I always sit on the opposition Benches, but when I was on the other side of the House —I remember the Labour Government’s proposal that all schools should be obliged to teach about healthy eating, among other things.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We do not want to go into what previous Governments may or may not have done. The debate is about the Bill. You would not want to sidetrack me, or your good self.

[Philip Davies]

No, absolutely not, and I assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I am not getting sidetracked. My point, which is very relevant to the Bill, is that all these things, very worthy in themselves, are like a salami slicer. We are talking about half an hour here for this, and half an hour there for that. Each half-hour may not in itself seem like a great deal of time out of the school curriculum, but when we put together all the things that a school is obliged to do, we are talking about a serious amount of time—perhaps a full day out of the weekly curriculum. That is what I fear will happen. We cannot take this provision in isolation; we have to look at all the other things piled on schools, and should ask them whether they really have enough time to have yet another thing imposed on them.

I should ask what I often ask on these occasions: if, as we keep being told, this is such a wonderful thing, and there are no downsides, why was the provision never introduced in the 13 years of the Labour Government? The shadow Minister did not explain this very well. I have to wonder whether Labour Members actually have the commitment to this that they would like us to believe. Not only did they not introduce the measure in their 13 years in government, although they had the perfect opportunity to do so, but they spent about an hour and 15 minutes today on two urgent questions and some pointless points of order to delay progress on this debate.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. We are definitely drifting off the Bill. We will not judge what has held us up. This is not about time, as you well know, Mr Davies; you are the Fridays expert. You do not want me to be misled, do you?

[Philip Davies]

You are absolutely right, Mr Deputy Speaker: it is not about the time. Time carries on, and we carry on with our speeches; time will sort itself out.

As for the flexibility and support that schools have regarding first aid, the Minister for Schools made it clear—we should put this on the record—that there is nothing to stop schools teaching first aid. He said in a parliamentary answer:

“Schools are free to teach emergency life-saving skills and may choose to do so as part of personal, social, health and economic education. The Department…is encouraging schools to purchase …defibrillators…We have also published a guide to defibrillators on school premises”.—[Official Report, 19 January 2015; Vol. 591, c. 17-18.]

The Department has made it clear that schools are already free to do this, and that it does not need to go any further. I also point out that as of 13 November this year, 787 defibrillators have been purchased under the Government’s scheme, so to say that the Government are doing nothing to assist in this area would be completely wrong and misleading. There is an awful lot being done. Much more can be achieved by continuing down a voluntary route than could be achieved by trying, in a ham-fisted way, to mandate things that never seem to work as envisaged.

It is worth pointing out that in May, the Department announced that St John Ambulance would receive more than £250,000

“to build a nation of young first aiders who are resilient, confident and motivated.”

That is part of the Government’s £3.5 million character grant scheme, through which St John Ambulance is training

“600 champions…and 31,500 pupils selected for first aid training, supporting 100,000 pupils… overall. 100 new cadet clubs will also be set up.”

That is a much more valuable way of going about this. An awful lot is being done to give children as much easy access to first aid resources as possible without interfering in the role of schools and teachers.

I acknowledge the fantastic work that school staff members throughout the country do to ensure the safety of children at school. Schools routinely include the needs of pupils when making their first aid needs assessment for staff, and when putting appropriate provision in place. The number of qualified first aiders required will be a part of the school’s first aid needs assessment, and will be based on local circumstances, so it is not as if the provision of first aid in schools is inadequate and we need the measures in the Bill; that is already catered for.

This issue touches on the question of what a school’s role is, and should be; the proposer of the Bill started to go down this route in her argument for the Bill. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester talked about schools’ roles, too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is right.

It is clear from what happens at the guides that first aid skills need to be updated My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall touched on this in an intervention. The guides do it every two years. For it to mean anything at all, schools will have to teach first aid every two or three years, which will mean even more time out of the curriculum. I remember doing a first aid course at school, but I have to admit that if I were faced with a medical emergency, I would struggle to remember all the training I received. In that sense it would be rendered completely useless. That would apply to many of those who would go through first aid training at school, particularly if they were not paying attention because they did not want to be there in the first place.

We in this place would be far better advised to encourage young people to go out and join the guides or the scouts, or to do the Duke of Edinburgh’s award—the bronze, the silver and the gold. That would be a very worthwhile thing for them to do, and as part of that they would get all the emergency first aid training they would ever need. That would be a much more worthwhile message for us to send out—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. We have had a lot of examples. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that previous speakers also mentioned good examples. Nobody is disagreeing that there are lots of good organisations, but the Bill is about schools and education. We are in danger of getting into an argument about those who provide training in the voluntary sector and whether they should do it. I know that the hon. Gentleman wants to stick purely to the Bill, which is about first aid provision in schools.

[Philip Davies]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

I take my hon. Friend’s point, but I will explain why I do not think first aid is worth teaching in schools. My fear is if we start doing in school all the things that happen at the scouts, the guides and the Duke of Edinburgh’s award, there will be no point in people joining them, and these very worthy organisations—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. We are not debating what is provided by the scouts, the guides or anyone else. This is about the provision of first aid training. We do not want to get into all the activities those organisations do or try to compare the two. You understand that, Mr Davies. You are very good.

[Philip Davies]

The point I am trying to make, Mr Deputy Speaker—I apologise if I am making it in a ham-fisted way—is why the Bill is unnecessary. We are discussing whether the Bill should be enacted, and I am making the point—I apologise if I appear to be doing it in a deviant manner, but I assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not doing so intentionally—that the Bill is unnecessary, for the reasons I am giving. I hope that is well within the scope of the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

It was not down to me that an hour and 15 minutes was taken up by urgent questions.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. We are not going to debate urgent questions. They are not debatable, and I do not want to hear them mentioned again.

[Philip Davies]

I will plough on with my remarks, Mr Deputy Speaker; such matters are outside my control. If 100 Members are here we will have a vote come what may, whatever I say or do.

There are the costs of the venue hire, training the teachers and training the replacement teachers—this is according to the British Heart Foundation, which goes on to say:

“The largest consumable cost is the initial supply of resuscitation manikins.”

We have not heard about this in the debate so far. The BHF goes on:

“Ideally, in a class of up to 32 there should be one manikin used between two people (16 in total). Schools should have both standard resuscitation manikins and baby manikins. These are one-off costs for the lifetime of the manikin, with annual costs to maintain the equipment. Per school, we estimate that this costs around £2,200 each year. This takes into account the appropriate learning materials required in a programme to aid teaching these life-saving skills to pupils, in addition to general administration and monitoring costs.”

That opens up a whole can of worms: schools will have to find supply teachers—an immense cost—so that teachers can go on a course for a day to learn the first aid information to teach. Even if the teachers do not go on the course themselves, they still need to find time to be taught the first aid information by other teachers. Furthermore, there is the cost of the manikins, mentioned by the British Heart Foundation, as well.

Earlier, I was discussing the problems that schools have. One problem cited by Ofsted is teacher turnover. Continually being required to send new teachers on to training courses is another burden that schools that are already struggling should not have to suffer. When I spoke to people at my local secondary schools about the Bill, that was one of their main areas of concern. Someone at one of the schools outlined their concerns as follows in an email:

“The Academy currently can probably meet this duty as we have a qualified first aid trainer on the associate staff body; however, this would pose difficulties as it would be a requirement to ensure that there is someone with the appropriate level of training on staff—or have to be a brought in provision, to ensure that all young people receive the correct advice”.

That concern was echoed by other schools in my constituency, which were concerned by not only the staffing implications but the time allocation demanded of the school timetable.

Furthermore, schools would have to be required to find room in their budgets to pay for the provisions. We have heard about the cost of the manikins; I also spoke to some prominent union officials who live in my constituency. One said that making first aid education compulsory might not be cost-effective because at the moment first-aiders get a small allowance and training all teachers would be a massive expense. They would probably have to be retrained every three or four years. Is that cost-effective? Probably not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Lab)]

I apologise for not being in the Chamber earlier. I had to attend to other business.

I think that what we are being asked to do is give the Bill a Second Reading. It is perfectly right that the hon. Gentleman wants a lot more detail, but I am sure he would be very welcome to serve on the Committee should he allow the Bill to make progress today. He could then raise all these points, and they could all be answered satisfactorily. Will he now please let us move on?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. It is getting very emotional.

[Mrs Sheryll Murray]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a Member just to walk into a debate just before it is supposed to end—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. That is a decision for the occupant of the Chair. I will decide what is in order and what is not in order. It is in order. I did see the Member come in. I did make a note. I do not have to explain myself and I will not be questioned again on the matter.

[Mr Nuttall]

To deal briefly with the intervention, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley said a moment or two ago—I do not know whether the right hon. Lady heard his comment—if there were 100 Members here who wanted to close the debate and the occupant of the Chair was in agreement, I would be happy for that to happen. However, my concerns cannot be dealt with in Committee because I am concerned about the principle of the Bill. I oppose it in principle—not just some minor details. I do not think that my concerns could be addressed simply by sitting down and letting the Bill go through to Committee.

I mentioned earlier that I had surveyed the secondary schools in my constituency. One reason why I felt it was important to do that is that, according to the records I keep in my office, about a dozen people have contacted me about the Bill. Most of the dozen—there are one or two exceptions—have simply sent me a standard letter, which is in identical form to all the other contacts I have had. Therefore, with over 67,000 constituents, 99.9-odd per cent. have not contacted me about the matter. I would therefore suggest that it is not an overwhelmingly pressing matter for my constituents, as some would have us believe.

I have concerns about the actual content of the Bill. It is not clear from the Bill how the training would be assessed or to what standard the training would be delivered. The impression has often been given in the debate that it is all about CPR and the use of defibrillators. However, in new section 85B(2)(d), introduced by clause 1(3), there is a long list of subjects that would have to be covered. I do not see how that could all be covered in half an hour in assembly. The reality is that the training will take quite a lot of planning. It will take several hours over a period of time. We have not been told what year the pupils will be in when they receive the training—is it the first, second, third, fourth or fifth year of secondary?

The Bill does say that there will be a consultation. Forgive me, but I would have thought that it was a good idea to have the consultation before we had the Bill. It seems to be a cart before the horse strategy. Rather than provide for a consultation in the Bill, surely it would have been a good idea to have had the consultation. We could then have had the debate on stronger ground.

I have rather slimmed down my comments because I want to hear from the Minister. In conclusion, I believe the idea of having a nation where everyone has the skills necessary to save someone else’s life in an emergency is a very worthy one indeed, but I am not convinced this Bill is the right starting place to achieve that aim. I believe in the current position where schools have the freedom to make their own arrangements and, as I have explained, teachers are doing that so well in my constituency. I thank them for their excellent work, and I think they should be allowed to get on with it unhindered by legislation and yet more bureaucracy. Many teachers are already worried about their workload, and we should ask ourselves whether this is the right time to add to their burdens.

Emergency first aid skills can already be taught and I certainly recommend that every pupil should seek out opportunities to learn those skills. I believe individuals should have the freedom to make their own decisions on first aid training. That is the better way to truly create a nation of life savers. For all these reasons, I oppose this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gyimah]

I do want to make some progress. We want the new national curriculum to last, rather than having to be updated every few years. The new national curriculum is based on a body of essential knowledge that children should be expected to acquire in key subjects during the course of their school career. It embodies for all children their cultural and scientific inheritance, enhances their understanding of the world around them, and exposes them to the best that has been thought and written. That essential knowledge should not change significantly over time.

It has somehow been routine for Education Ministers to come to this place to make the case against the inclusion of a particular new requirement in the national curriculum. Such proposals, like the one in this Bill, are often supported by a persuasive argument, but their sheer number means that I start from a position of caution. I have to read out some of the topics that have been suggested for inclusion in order to make Members aware of the sheer burdens that people wish to be imposed on the national curriculum. The topics include: understanding the causes and issues around homelessness; teaching children about their rights in the context of forced marriage; teaching against violence; understanding transgender issues; knowledge about the health dangers of tobacco; understanding animal welfare; anti-bullying, including online bullying; the risks and dangers of gambling; promoting gender equality; knowledge about cancer and how to cope when cancer affects your life; knowledge of the symptoms of brain tumours in young people; fire and road safety, as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince); positive body image; the UN declaration on the rights of the child; the dangers of carbon monoxide; gardening; knife crime—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I must say to the Minister that he cannot read out a telephone book of examples. He needs to try to get to the point we are dealing with.

[Wes Streeting]

Why is he talking out the Bill?

[Mr Gyimah]

I am not talking out the Bill, as the hon. Gentleman suggests from a sedentary position. I think it is insulting to this House, which is a bastion of free speech and the cradle of democracy, that people should not be able to develop their arguments fully.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I hope you are not suggesting that I am trying to stop a democratic speech.

[Mr Gyimah]

Not you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am talking about the hon. Gentleman. As I was saying, mindfulness; parenting; the theory of knowledge; fertility; map reading skills; encouraging children—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I think we have all got the examples—I don’t need the rest of the telephone book to be read out! Please, let’s get back to the debate. You have got plenty of pages with you there, just pick a different one.

[Mr Gyimah]

I am glad that you have grasped the point so quickly, Mr Deputy Speaker. Some of those proposals are niche, to say the least, but when made they all have a strong and persuasive argument behind them, with support from a strong campaign. If we were to include each of them in the national curriculum, we would have to ask what they displace, how we account for the time and how things develop. If the Government were to tell schools that they should teach about the dangers of tobacco, about gardening and about road safety along with every one of the issues that I listed earlier, we would be prescribing a very long list of specific content that should be covered, which would be unproductive. It could lead to a tick-box approach, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) mentioned, that does not properly address the most important issues.

Further Education

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. From now on, the speaking limit is five minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Because of all the interventions, I am going to have to drop the time limit down to four minutes in order to get everyone in. I do not want to have to drop it any further, so let us see if we can keep everything going.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)]

I am beginning to wonder what this Government have got against young people. When I spoke in this Chamber yesterday I asked why on earth we should not give 16 and 17-year-olds the ability to vote in local elections, and today I am talking about cuts to post-16 education.

The Prime Minister said today that decisions we make now are not just for the present, but for the future and for our children and our children’s children. He should not have to say that—it is entirely self-evident—but the fact that he said it on the same day as this Opposition day debate on cuts to post-16 education funding is particularly ironic.

Hopwood Hall college in my constituency does not offer, and never has offered, courses in balloon artistry, yet the Secretary of State cites such courses. In so doing, she repeats the misinformation spread in March 2014 by the then Skills Minister, the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock), when he, too, claimed that courses such as balloon artistry would no longer be paid for by the taxpayer. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills then revealed that such a course had never been listed for Government money anyway. It is disappointing in the extreme to hear the Secretary of State for Education incorporating such myths into her arguments. In this case I would suggest that she herself is guilty of scaremongering.

Hopwood Hall college is one of more than 100 colleges to write recently to the Prime Minister to urge a rethink of his Government’s proposals. They have highlighted many major problems with the current and planned system of funding, including repeated year-on-year cuts to adult funding, which now total about 40%; a significant reduction in funding for students aged 18; and large reductions in annual funding allocations being announced to colleges only weeks before a new academic year, severely harming their ability to plan and to invest in staff and resources. The letter was signed by the chair of Hopwood Hall college, Robert Clegg OBE, who is also a Tory councillor in Rochdale. I wonder whether the Secretary of State would accuse him of scaremongering.

The further education sector has taken a kicking over the past few years. I remember the sadness and anger in my constituency when the coalition Government withdrew the education maintenance allowance and poorer students were forced to withdraw from their courses as they simply could not afford to attend them anymore.

The principal of the college wrote to me last year, expressing his concerns about last year’s round of cuts and the detrimental effect they would have on the provision of adult further education. He said:

“Cuts of this magnitude could mean the end of this essential education in every city, town and community in England and the consequences will be felt by individuals and the economy for years to come.”

That was last year. Now it seems that FE and sixth-form colleges are staring another round of swingeing cuts in the face. There is a real fear that further funding cuts in the next comprehensive spending review will tip our sixth-form and FE colleges over the precipice. Colleges are asking that this Government give consistent and equitable funding to all 16 to 18-year-olds, and that this should be the same as that given to 14 to 16-year-olds. They want more certainty and predictability of funding to enable planning and investment to occur with certainty and confidence. I urge the Secretary of State to take seriously the problems stated in the letter signed by over 100 chairs of FE colleges and listen to their warnings—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) knows that he cannot just remain standing. If the Minister wishes to give way, I am sure he will; if he does not, that is his choice.

[Nick Boles]

I might well have given way to the right hon. Gentleman if he had attended any of the debate apart from his own intervention.

[Alex Salmond]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sure that the Minister—if he is that—did not mean to mislead the House, but if he checks the record, I think he will find that funding for further education in Scotland is immeasurably superior to funding for further education in England.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

The right hon. Gentleman has been here over many years. He is back, and I know that he will never ever forget what is, and what is not, a point of order. That was not.

[Nick Boles]

When any question is asked in this House, from the Government side we hear about reforms—reforms of institutions, standards, leadership and incentives. In this debate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), Chair of the Education Committee, made an extremely interesting proposal for sixth-form colleges to be allowed to convert to academy status, and I know that Ministers will have listened to that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) spoke about the economies of scale that large college groups can enjoy, and which enable them to support enrichment programmes. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) spoke passionately about apprenticeships and applauded Jack’s ambition to set up his own business. I have no doubt that that ambition will be fulfilled. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan), and I enjoyed visiting a college with her before she was elected. She made a good argument that we must encourage students to opt for courses that will help them to get good jobs, and that is exactly what the introduction of destination measures will achieve.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer) spoke of Cambridge regional college, which educates more than 5,000 apprentices. I point out to her and the House that colleges currently win only 37% of the funding for apprenticeship training, and there is no reason why they should not win more of that growing funding stream. Yesterday, I suggested to the Association of Colleges annual conference that we should work together with colleges to help them to achieve two thirds of the much larger budget for apprenticeship funding that will be in place once the apprenticeship levy has been introduced.

In what was without doubt the best speech of this debate, my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) rightly said that Opposition Members should be careful before they sneer at apprenticeships in hairdressing and retail. We know that level 2 and level 3 apprenticeships increase people’s incomes by, on average, 11% and 16%, and Conservative Members will not sneer at those people and their hard work.

From the Opposition side of the House, we hear about money. It is their stock answer to everything. Indeed, it is their only answer to anything. The shadow Secretary of State waved a bloody shroud based on nothing more than her wild speculation about the spending review. The hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) made a reasonable point about the need for some funding to support the implementation of the conclusions of area reviews, and she will be aware that we already provide interim funding for colleges in financial difficulties. We are absolutely aware of the need to provide funding to support the implementation of area reviews.

Trade Union Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Tom Blenkinsop]

The Minister just said that the Tories voted for it at the last election. You did not declare that as a policy prior to the last election. You also did not declare the NHS Act or the changes to the tax credits. If you are so proud of this planned legislation, why did you not declare it before the general election?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. First of all, I am not responsible. I want to clear that up. [Interruption.] No, “you” refers to me. Mr Blenkinsop, you were wrong: it is not me. It may be those on the Government Benches, but you said “you”. Secondly, we need to speak about the amendment. I have allowed some latitude, Mr Lavery, because you have been tempted away, and I know that you want to get back to where you were.

[Ian Lavery]

That is absolutely correct, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think the reason my hon. Friend spoke in the way he did is that Government Front Benchers were having a separate conversation and not listening to a single word he was saying. That is not unusual.

This Bill is simply here to do three things: to restrict the right to organise, to restrict the right to collective bargaining, and to restrict the right to strike action. I did not serve on the Bill Committee, but I listened to many of the arguments in the evidence sessions, which were quite enlightening. I think the Minister himself would say that the Government found it extremely difficult to get anybody who had a clue what the Bill was about to speak for them at the evidence sessions. One of their witnesses, the chief executive of 2020Health, spoke about facility time. Facility time is a huge issue in this Bill, as the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) said. He asked my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) whether it is right that Government Ministers can intervene to dictate on facility time in Scotland and Wales. I would ask whether it is right that Government Ministers can intervene in facility time in any workplace anywhere in the UK. The answer, quite simply, is that it is not right: they should keep out of the workplace with regard to the likes of facility time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Has the hon. Gentleman given way or finished? We need to get this right.

[James Cartlidge]

I am happy to take this point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens]

I thank Members who have contributed to this debate. I have been struck by three things. I say gently to the Minister and the Conservatives—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.

[Chris Stephens]

I am summing up, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I am going to stop you in a second, so you need to say whether you want to withdraw the amendment.

[Chris Stephens]

Okay, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 2

Workplace ballots and ballots by electronic means

‘(1) Workplace ballots and balloting by electronic means, shall be permitted in the types of trade union ballots specified in subsection (2) with effect from the commencement date for sections 2 and 3 (Ballot thresholds for industrial action);

(2) The types of trade union ballots to which subsections (1) and (3) apply are those referred to in Chapters IV (elections for certain positions), V (industrial action), VI (political resolutions) and VII (approval of instruments of amalgamation or transfer).

(3) In relation to the ballots referred to in subsection (2)—

(a) the employer shall be under a duty to co-operate generally in connection with the ballot with the union, which shall include not undertaking surveillance of, intercepting or otherwise interfering with any communications between the union and its members, and with any person appointed in accordance with section 226B of the Act (Appointment of Scrutineer); and

(b) every person who is entitled to vote in the ballot shall be permitted to do so without interference or constraint imposed by any employer of the union’s members, or any of its employees or any person its behalf.

(4) Where in any proceedings an employer claims, or will claim, that a union has failed to comply with any requirement referred to in subsection 226 of the Act (Requirement of ballot before action by trade union), the union will have a complete defence to those proceedings if the employer has failed to comply with any part of its duty under subsection (3)(a) or it, or any of its employees or any person on its behalf, has imposed any interference or constraint of a type referred to in subsection (3)(b).

(5) In this section—

(a) “Workplace ballot” means a ballot in which votes may be cast in the workplace by such means as is or are determined by the union. Such means of voting in the workplace determined by the union may, but are not required to, include electronic means; and

(b) “electronic means” means such electronic means as is or determined by the union and, in each case, where section 226B of the Act (Appointment of Scrutineer) imposes an obligation on the union, is confirmed by the person appointed in accordance with that section, before the opening day of the ballot as meeting the required standard.

(6) Where electronic means are determined by the union, and, if applicable, confirmed by the person appointed under section 226B of the Act as meeting the required standard as provided for in subsection (5), the means of voting in the ballot shall also include postal voting, or some means of voting in a workplace ballot other than electronic means, where determined by the union and, in a case in which section 226B of the Act imposes an obligation on the union (Appointment of Scrutineer), confirmed by the person appointed in accordance with that section as being reasonably necessary to ensure that the required standard is satisfied.

(7) For the purpose of subsections (5) and (6), a workplace ballot or means of electronic voting satisfies ‘the required standard’ for the ballot if, so far as reasonably practicable—

(a) those entitled to vote have an opportunity to do so;

(b) votes cast are secret; and

(c) the risk of any unfairness or malpractice is minimised.

(8) Any provision of the Act shall be disapplied to the extent necessary to give effect to this section.”—(Chris Stephens.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

I beg to move amendment 6, page 4, line 31, leave out clause 9.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 38, page 5, line 6, leave out “must” and insert “may”.

This amendment would make the obligations under clause 9 voluntary rather than mandatory.

Amendment 10, page 5, leave out lines 7 to 19 and insert—

‘(3) A picket supervisor is required to show a constable a letter of authorisation only if—

(a) the constable provides documentary evidence that he or she is a constable;

(b) the constable provides his or her name, and the name of the police station to which he or she is attached; and

(c) the constable explains the reasons for the request to see the letter of authorisation.

(4) If a picket supervisor complies with a constable‘s request to produce a letter of authorisation, the police officer shall provide the picket supervisor with a written record of the request, the reasons for it, and an acknowledgment that the request was complied with.

(5) If a picket supervisor fails to comply with a constable‘s request to produce a letter of authorisation, the police officer shall provide the picket supervisor with a written record of the request, the reasons for it, and an acknowledgment that the request was not complied with.

(6) Information about the identity of a picket supervisor and any information relating to the production of a letter of authorisation shall be retained by the police only for the purposes of giving evidence in legal proceedings directly related to the picketing to which it is connected.

(7) For the avoidance of doubt neither a member of the public nor an employer shall be entitled to request a picket supervisor to produce a letter of authorisation.”

Amendment 39, page 5, line 7, leave out “must” and insert “may”.

This amendment would make the obligations under clause 9 voluntary rather than mandatory.

Amendment 40, page 5, line 10, leave out “must” and insert “may”.

This amendment would make the obligations under clause 9 voluntary rather than mandatory.

Amendment 41, page 5, line 15, leave out “must” and insert “may”.

This amendment would make the obligations under clause 9 voluntary rather than mandatory.

Government amendments 2 and 3.

Amendment 42, page 5, line 17, leave out “must” and insert “may”.

This amendment would make the obligations under clause 9 voluntary rather than mandatory.

Amendment 43, page 5, line 20, leave out “must” and insert “may”.

This amendment would make the obligations under clause 9 voluntary rather than mandatory.

Amendment 44, page 5, line 25, leave out “must” and insert “may”.

This amendment would make the obligations under clause 9 voluntary rather than mandatory.

Government amendment 4.

New clause 1—Industrial action and agency workers—

‘(1) Subject to subsection (3), an employment business shall not introduce or supply a work-seeker to a hirer to perform—

(a) the duties normally performed by a worker who is taking part in a strike or other industrial action (“the first worker“), or

(b) the duties normally performed by any other worker employed by the hirer and who is assigned by the hirer to perform the duties normally performed by the first worker,

unless in either case the employment business does not, and has no reasonable grounds for knowing, that the first worker is taking part in a strike or other industrial action.

(2) Subject to subsection (3) an employer (“the hirer“) shall not procure an employment agency to supply a work-seeker to perform—

(a) the duties normally performed by a worker who is taking part in a strike or other industrial action (“the first worker“), or

(b) the duties normally performed by any other worker employed by the hirer and who is assigned by the hirer to perform the duties normally performed by the first worker,

unless in either case the hirer does not, and has no reasonable grounds for knowing, that the first worker is taking part in a strike or other industrial action.

(3) Subsections (2) and (3) shall not apply if, in relation to the first workers, the strike or other industrial action in question is an unofficial strike or other unofficial industrial action for the purposes of section 237 of the 1992 Act.

(4) For the purposes of this section an “employment business” means an employment business as defined by the Employment Agencies Act 1973.

(5) Breach of the provisions of this section shall be actionable against both the employment business and the hirer for breach of statutory duty.

(6) For the avoidance of doubt, the duty in subsections (1) and (2) above are owed to—

(a) any worker who is taking part in the strike or industrial action; and

(b) any trade union of which such a worker is a member.”

New clause 3—Statements on Bills affecting Trade Union political funds—

‘(1) A Minister of the Crown in charge of a Bill in either House of Parliament must, before Second Reading of the Bill, if the Bill contains provisions which are likely to affect the machinery of Trade Union political funds—

(a) make a statement to the effect that the Bill has been introduced with the agreement of the leaders of all the political parties represented in the House of Commons, or

(b) make a statement to the effect that the Bill has been introduced without agreement of the leaders of all the political parties represented in the House of Commons as the case may be.

(2) The statement must be in writing and be published in such manner as the Minister making it considers appropriate.”

New clause 4—Certification Officer—

For subsections (2) to (4) of section 254 of the 1992 Act substitute—

‘(2) The Certification Officer shall be appointed by the Judicial Appointments Commission, and the person appointed shall have expertise in trade union law.

(3) There shall be a Certification Officer for Scotland, equal in status to the Certification Officer in subsections (1) and (2) above.

(4) The Certification Officer for Scotland shall be appointed by the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland, and the person appointed shall have expertise in trade union law.””

Amendment 27, page 5, line 31, leave out Clause 10.

Amendment 1, page 7, line 6, at end insert—

‘(2A) After section 85 of the 1992 Act insert—

“85A Payment of political funds directly to political parties

(1) The opt-in notice at section 84 of this Act must include a provision to permit the member of a trade union to direct the trade union to transfer the member’s political fund contributions directly to a UK political party rather than the trade union’s political fund.

(2) In this section a “UK political party” is a political party that is on the register of political parties in Great Britain and Northern Ireland maintained by the Electoral Commission.

(3) Where a trade union member indicates that his or her contributions should be transferred directly to a UK political party, the union must make the transfer within 31 days of receipt of the contributions from the member.””

This amendment would empower trade union members to direct their political fund contributions be paid directly to a political party rather than into a union’s political fund.

Amendment 28, page 7, line 11, leave out clause 11.

Amendment 37, page 8, line 17, clause 12, leave out “how many” and insert “the percentage”.

Amendment 25, page 8, line 19, leave out “total amount” and insert “the percentage”.

Amendment 26, page 8, line 29, at end insert

“and whether these are met in part or in full by a contribution from a trade union.”

Amendment 24, page 8, line 29, at end insert—

“(f) the percentage of relevant union officials whose facility time is met by a contribution from a trade union in whole or in part.”

Amendment 23, page 8, line 42, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c).

Amendment 11, page 9, line 32, clause 13, at end insert—

‘(1A) A minister shall not exercise powers under this section except to the extent that the exercise of these powers is compatible with treaty obligations.”

Amendment 12, page 10, line 37, at end insert—

‘(9A) The regulations may require an employer to take any steps under this section except to the extent that these steps are incompatible with treaty obligations.”

Amendment 13, page 10, line 45, at end insert—

“(d) (1B) “treaty obligations” means treaties of (a) the Council of Europe and (b) the International Labour Organisation, which are in force and which have been ratified by the United Kingdom.”

Amendment 5, page 11, line 12, clause 14, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

‘(2) Subject to subsection (2A), an employer is a relevant public sector employer if the employer is a public authority specified, or of a description specified, in regulations made by a Minister of the Crown.

(2A) An employer is not a relevant public sector employer so far as trade union subscription deductions are concerned where there exists an agreement between the employer and a trade union which provides for—

(a) the remittance by the employer to the trade union of those deductions, and

(b) the making of a payment by the trade union to the employer in respect of that remittance.”

Amendment 36, page 11, line 37, at end insert—

‘(8) The regulations may require an employer to take any steps under this section except to the extent that these steps are incompatible with treaty obligations, where ‘treaty obligations’ means treaties of (a) the Council of Europe and (b) the International Labour Organisation, which are in force and which have been ratified by the United Kingdom.“”

Amendment 35, page 12, line 8, at end insert—

‘(4) A minister shall not exercise powers under this section except to the extent that the exercise of these powers is compatible with treaty obligations.”

[Kevin Brennan]

I must say I thought we won the last debate, but somehow or other we lost the vote. As Disraeli said, perhaps a majority is its own repartee, but perhaps things will be different when these matters are discussed in another place.

Amendment 6 would delete clause 9 and leave picketing arrangements as they currently stand. Picketing activities are already heavily regulated in the UK by an extensive range of civil and criminal laws. Unions must comply with the requirements for peaceful pickets contained in section 220 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and operate in accordance with the accompanying code of practice. The Conservative Government have failed to demonstrate why the picketing provisions in the Bill are necessary or justified. The Government’s own Regulatory Policy Committee concluded that the BIS impact assessments on picketing restrictions were not fit for purpose.

The Government have made some minor concessions, which I will come on to later, but these new provisions go far beyond what is fair or necessary. In fact they were described by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) as Franco-style and I think that is an appropriate description by a Conservative Member.

The clause will introduce a new restriction on picketing activities by trade unions and their members, and failure to comply with these over-prescriptive requirements will expose trade unions to legal challenges. Employers will be able to apply to court for an injunction preventing, or imposing restrictions on, a picket or even for damages for failing to wear an armband on a picket line.

Over the summer, the Government ran a very short consultation. It was utterly insufficient given the scale of the Bill’s proposed changes. The Government sought to rely on evidence gathered during the Carr review, even though the Government’s own impact assessment confirmed that

“this evidence could not be substantiated”.

Carr decided he was unable to make evidence-based proposals or recommendations for change as originally instructed

“due to the increasingly political environment within which [he] was operating coupled with the lack of a significant enough body of evidence to support any recommendations for change”.

Trade Union Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Just to try to ensure that everybody gets in, with 46 speakers still to come, we are going to have to work with four minutes each. If we can hold to that, we will be doing very well.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to take part in this important debate. It has been interesting listening to the contributions of other hon. Members and, in particular, to the excellent speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens). I hope to make a contribution from a slightly different perspective from that of some of my colleagues today.

Before being elected to this place, I spent all my career working in human resource management. In the interests of transparency, I should say that I am a member of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. I worked for many years in a job where I sat as part of the management side in negotiations with trade unions, so I come to this debate with an outlook developed at least partly as a result of my professional background. I am contributing as someone who has had to make difficult decisions when dealing with challenging employment issues, including collective redundancy negotiations and industrial action.

I also come here, however, as someone who knows that the most challenging situations and all the difficult discussions were entirely more productive and more effective, and carried more weight, because they were dealt with in partnership with trade unions. I did not always agree with my trade union counterparts, and they certainly did not always agree with me, but that is surely the point: sometimes there will be different perspectives, and that is entirely healthy and appropriate. It is clear that when tough decisions have to be made, communication is the key to an effective and productive workplace culture. We do need to accept, however, that occasionally we will not agree, no matter how much discussion we have had—that is a fact of life—and no Bill will make employers and staff agree on everything.

What this Bill will do is: ensure that any disagreement is squashed by management, without any constructive dialogue; render any dialogue that there is futile; and ensure that the important and constructive voices of staff are lost, drowned in a welter of arguments about minutiae of process or brushed aside. This Bill is a recipe for turning disagreement into conflict, and for escalating a short-term problem into a fundamental break in relationships in the workplace. Interfering in the employment relationship with this restrictive and provocative Bill is a backward step. It appears to be driven more by ideology, and by malice towards trade unions and their members, than by any desire to improve industrial relations.

We have already heard about the leading academics in industrial relations who wrote to the newspapers describing the proposals as “draconian” and “perverse”. They recognise the positive contributions of unions to performance, improvement and innovation in the workplace, and they decry the Government’s proposals as undermining the ability of unions to protect terms and conditions, and leading to the loss of employee voice. They are right to point out that this Bill will also have an impact on those who are not members of trade unions. They say that

“it will feed into the labour market by increasing endemic low pay and insecure terms and conditions of employment among non-unionised workers.”

Even the Chancellor is now persuaded that low pay is a problem that we have to grapple with, so we must wonder why the Government are so keen to introduce this Bill. If they were serious about looking at the relationships between employees and their representatives, they would focus on how to engage and involve employees and unions in increasing productivity, through fairer and supportive rights for workers. If we look at the current levels of industrial action, as summarised by the Library, we see that it is difficult to fathom what reasons, other than ideological ones, the Government can possibly have for seeking to make these changes. The Government sell themselves as being interested in productivity and business, but these proposals run entirely contrary to that ethos. The Bill introduces unnecessary new and complex bureaucracy: it will increase costs for unions and employers, as legal disputes develop; and it undermines social justice. If this Bill is passed, and I sincerely hope that it is not—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I call Richard Fuller.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

I declare my interest as a member of Unite the union. The Bill exposes the Government’s self-appointed title as the workers’ party and their claim to be the party for working people as little more than empty rhetoric devised by the spin doctors at Tory HQ. It is a total misnomer to claim to be the party for working people while simultaneously steamrolling over those very workers’ democratic rights and civil liberties.

Last year, Pope Francis said:

“Trade unions have been an essential force for social progress, without which a semblance of a decent and humane society is impossible under capitalism.”

The trade union movement in the UK, independent of the Labour party and with the Labour party, is responsible for the fundamental gains of working people, many of which we now take for granted, including the weekend, maternity leave, the national health service and the national minimum wage.

The role of trade unions in society as a counterweight to the pressures of capital is essential for the protection of decent standards of living as well as a driver of economic growth. That was true in the 19th century and the 20th century and it is true now.

The Government are carrying out this attack on trade unions not for practical reasons supported by evidence, but out of their ideological commitment to fighting the battles of generations past and to pursuing their mission to weaken and destroy the labour and trade union movement. Let us make no mistake about it, the purpose of requiring union members to opt in to political funds is to attack and damage the finances of the Labour party so as to make the Conservative party’s financial advantage even greater than it already is. If this Bill passes, it would break a long-standing consensus in British politics that the Government should not introduce partisan legislation unfairly to disadvantage other political parties. Here in this House in 1948 Winston Churchill cautioned against taking such steps. He said:

“It has become a well-established custom that matters affecting the interests of rival parties should not be settled by the imposition of the will of one side over the other, but by an agreement reached either between the leaders of the main parties or by conferences under the impartial guidance of Mr. Speaker.”—[Official Report, 16 February 1948; Vol. 447, c. 859.]

Even Margaret Thatcher, a Prime Minister whose term was defined by her opposition to the trade union movement, considered the proposals such as the ones set out in this Bill to be too extreme. She said that

“legislation on this subject, which would affect the funding of the Labour party, would create great unease and should not be entered into lightly.”

She was not wrong. This Bill will create great unease and for once in my life I find myself in total agreement with Mrs T.

These proposals are so unreasonable and extreme that they will undoubtedly raise the serious prospect of legal challenge. The interference of the state in the affairs of trade unions is counter to article 11 of the European convention on human rights. We are signatories to the European social charter and as a nation we agreed in article 5 that our national laws would not restrict the freedom of workers to form and join organisations for the protection of their economic and social interests. The Bill directly contravenes our country’s commitment under the charter.

Our rights were not handed down from above; they were fought for tooth and nail, often against Conservative Governments. Government Members should be aware that those rights will not be given up easily. If the Government continue with their authoritarian plan to abuse their time in office by attacking our democratic rights, they would be wise to remember that for every action there is a reaction. I hope that wiser counsel from their Back Benches will prevail in bringing their Front Benchers back from the brink.

This is a vindictive Bill that is designed not to address a social, moral or economic priority, but to fundamentally damage political opposition. It is more than a step too far. If the Government do not reconsider—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Chris Philp.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Stevens]

I will not give way.

I urge the Government to listen not only to me and to my colleagues on the Opposition Benches, but to the business community, civil liberties organisations, respected academics, trade unions and, most importantly, the public—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Mr Alan Mak.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hannah Bardell]

No, I will not: I want to make some progress.

This Bill undermines a number of basic, fundamental human rights. As we all know, this Tory Government also seek to remove the Human Rights Act from the statute book altogether. As with their targets on child poverty, they will remove any aspirational standards that enable us to be a forward-thinking and progressive society.

This Tory Government are not just ideologically driven, but ruthlessly politically opportunistic. They claim to believe in a smaller state in relation to providing public services, but are happy for it to have a very long arm to interfere in the lives of its citizens, especially those who are less powerful or less fortunate.

The history of trade union legislation is probably the most politicised area of legislation. Liberty, one of the UK’s leading civil liberties and human rights organisations, has said of the Bill:

“Ideological motivations of any Government are part and parcel of politics but should not imperil the protection of rights and freedoms of individuals. Yet this relatively short Bill has the potential to cause significant damage to fair and effective industrial relations in this country—and would set a dangerous precedent for the wider curtailment of freedom of assembly and association.”

In essence, this Bill is about restrictions on fundamental freedoms. It introduces increased restrictions on the abilities of trade unions to ballot for strike action; reduces the amount of paid facility time; requires trade unions to become certified by the UK Government for legal protection; and introduces new investigatory powers against trade unions. The Bill introduces measures requiring a 50% threshold and 40% turnout for all ballots declaring strike action. That is the same undemocratic practice that the Conservatives used in the 1979 Scottish devolution referendum.

This Bill is a fundamental attack on human rights and civil liberties, and a reminder that the Tories fear the trade union movement. This Government want to take away some of our most fundamental and basic rights, while shrinking the space for us to debate and protest. The SNP—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame M. Morris]

Absolutely. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. A plethora of organisations —[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am desperate to hear the hon. Gentleman, but I cannot hear him because there are too many conversations or too many interruptions. Whichever it is, I call Grahame M. Morris.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend’s point was excellent and well made. In modern times, e-balloting is an accepted method of improving participation.

In truth, the Bill is a smokescreen to divert attention away from the Government’s policies of austerity and to limit the response of working people to object to the assault on their pay, pensions and working conditions. My hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell) and other hon. Members have made interesting comparisons with hedge funds, the banking system and the financial sector. Such organisations and institutions promoted the casino economy that brought Britain, and indeed the world, to the brink of financial disaster. Yet, they seem to be allowed to wield considerable and unfettered political influence, and there is no proposal for similar constraints or levels of transparency. Our recovery is being built on a private debt bubble, and as austerity fails to eradicate the deficit or to improve the income or living standards for ordinary people, it is more important than ever for them to have a trade union to represent their interests.

In addition to significant and unnecessary new burdens, trade unions will also be expected to pay a levy to fund the certification officers’ new role. As we heard from the Secretary of State, the role will be much more proactive. They will have new powers to impose financial penalties and to scrutinise how unions use their political funds and for what purposes. Several Members have talked about the diverse reasons for which funds are used, but I hope that Government Members would agree that HOPE not hate and Bite the Ballot, as well as voter registration and improving public services, are all laudable aims that political funds support.

Unions must secure the continued consent of members to maintain a political fund, but that happens already as there must be a separate ballot every 10 years. Other Members, including the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), have mentioned that. Winston Churchill said:

“It has become a well-established custom that matters affecting the interests of rival parties should not be settled by the imposition of the will of one side over the other, but by an agreement reached…between the leaders of the main parties”.—[Official Report, 16 February 1948; Vol. 447, c. 859-860.]

I ask all Members to vote against this most pernicious, partisan and overtly political Bill, which is one of the most objectionable that I have seen in my time in the House. I ask those with a genuine interest in enhancing workplace democracy and improving industrial relations to engage and work with trade unions, not to see them as an enemy. They aim to create safer, fairer workplaces for our constituents and address grievances in an amicable manner—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order.