Trade Union Bill

Melanie Onn Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Nick Boles]

As you will be aware, Mr Speaker, and as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, any donations by public companies have to receive the approval of shareholders and are subject to the same declaration, at the exact same level, as we are proposing for trade unions, so when it comes to transparency and voting, things are equally clear.

I want to turn at some length to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) and his arguments in support of his amendment 5. All Members will have heard a sincere and principled man making a sincere and principled argument. I say that not because he was so kind as to quote, rather awkwardly, a speech I made in a moment of delusion, but because I genuinely believe he seeks the best for the British people, British business and trade unions. I correct him on one point of fact, however: while some trade unions compensate employers for check-off arrangements, our understanding is that this relates to only 22% of check-off arrangements in the public sector.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

Is the Minister aware that the general secretary of Unison—the largest trade union in the public sector—offered in Committee to reimburse employers for any check-off costs they incur?

[Nick Boles]

I am aware of that, because I was in the Committee, and the general secretary of Unison is an unforgettable man, and no one forgets when he makes them an offer. However, the purpose of the Government’s measure is not suddenly to undermine the representation of unions in the public sector—that is not what has happened in the civil service, where check-off has been removed—but to create a direct relationship between members and their trade unions by enabling them to make an active choice about which union will best represent them. We have heard from other unions that this has enabled them to compete for the membership of some in the civil service, and to form a more direct relationship with their members.

Term-time Leave

Melanie Onn Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2015 Westminster Hall

[Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)]

I thank my fellow Cornish MP, my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), for introducing the debate so well.

I fully understand the Government’s intention behind the legislation on taking children out of school during term time. I am sure that every Member present and throughout the House understands the need to address absence from school and to reassure people that the education of their children in school is hugely important. I am glad to live in a country where education is free, good and easily accessible. We do not want to do anything to undermine that value and the priority given to education. It is fantastic that our children have the opportunity to go to school and learn and grow into young people who are able to enter the world of work.

I also understand how children being absent and not taking part in their normal class or group at school can affect the learning of the whole class and its progress over the school year. We are not trying to undermine the Government’s intention to support schools in dealing with absence, and we recognise the contribution that children make to their class. Nevertheless, we are asking for change.

I too am a Cornish MP, and we have seen a huge problem in Cornwall. Part of the problem is how the legislation is interpreted. I have two small children in school. They have cousins of a very similar age, but their schools interpret the law differently. My children’s school is very strict. I have to confess that I took them out of school without permission so that we could go to a family wedding. I needed to take them out on the Thursday to travel to a Friday wedding, and we were not permitted to do that. My children’s cousins’ school, however, regularly allows holidays and provides educational material for the parents to use while they are away. That different interpretation causes tension among schools and among families. Whatever the Government choose to do after this debate, they should provide clear guidelines to schools about their intention for the legislation.

I think something has been lost. Before the legislation and guidance on school holidays were introduced, schools worked very well on this matter. I took my son on holiday for a week away from school, and the school provided a stuffed toy—if I remember correctly, it was an elephant called Elmer, although I may be wrong about that. We were encouraged to take Elmer to different places during the holiday, take photos and send postcards back from Elmer. When my child went back to school, he was able to talk about the experience. The class discussed where Elmer had been and learned important and interesting things about each visit he made. That has been lost, because that can no longer happen.

I am glad that we have a former teacher here who is able to confirm that in parts of the school year, learning—certainly formal learning—drops off. I have done a lot of school assemblies and been involved with schools for probably 20 years, and I have often been frustrated, because there used to be a time in the school year, often after the SATs finished, when formal education changed and parents could take advantage of it to take their children on holiday. That is no longer allowed, yet some schools still have a more informal attitude towards teaching in the latter weeks of the summer term. There are good reasons for that, but it is a shame that parents are not allowed to take their children out of school during that time.

I am concerned because, although the Conservative party does not want to intrude on families—we often say that families know best—I believe that this legislation does so. Some families in Cornwall, as we have heard, are not able to take their children on holiday during peak school holiday time because of their jobs. They may work in the public services or run business that rely heavily on the school holidays for their income. By introducing this legislation, we have intruded on those families and told them that they are not able to take their children on holiday.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), who has left the Chamber now, spoke about weekend holidays, but that would not work in Cornwall because families would spend the whole weekend stuck on the A30, which would be a completely inappropriate and unfortunate way of spending their holiday. I therefore do not accept the argument that weekends can be used to go on holiday; that would not work. I have to travel for longer than any other MP to get here on a Monday, and we cannot assume that weekends are an alternative.

As my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay said, the cost of taking a holiday during the school holidays is prohibitive for many families. Like my hon. Friend, my constituency neighbour, I come from one of the poorest areas in the country. Our average wage is considerably less than the national average.

That brings me on to the disruption to business. Businesses in my constituency have closed since the legislation was introduced because the owners are no longer able to run them all year round. The business they get in the summer, at half-term and even at Christmas is not enough for them to continue their work, so they have had to close their business and lay people off as a result. The impact on our local economy is considerable, and I am sad that the Government were unable to look at that before they introduced the current advice.

Last summer was phenomenal for the holiday industry in Cornwall. We had more visitors than we have had for many years. Our summer season has been compressed into the six-week school holiday period, and I do not know how long the holiday industry will survive in Cornwall, because the A30 was gridlocked pretty much continuously every day. If I travelled to Cornwall, using the precious holiday I have with my children, and got stuck on the A30, I do not know whether I would choose to do that again next year and the year after. The situation indirectly affects the potential of Cornwall’s tourism businesses, because if people cannot go on holiday to Cornwall because of the increased traffic on the roads, they will choose to go elsewhere. The holiday companies that cannot operate during the summer will close, and the businesses that rely on the summer trade will lose business and may not be able to continue.

I urge the Government to look carefully at this issue. We are not asking for parents to be able to compromise their child’s learning. We are asking the Government to look at the impact that this measure has on our tourism and family life. We seek an agreement that would allow holiday to be taken outside holiday time in a way that contributes to the child’s learning. We are asking the Government to relax the legislation, not to backtrack on their good efforts to address habitual absenteeism. It is very important that we address the issue of parents who regularly take their children out of school for no good reason; we recognise that that has a detrimental effect on the classroom. However, we ask the Government to recognise that parents are able to complement their child’s education with a school holiday. We need a change in the law, and schools need clear guidelines and absolute clarity about the Government’s approach. All schools need to use the same guidelines for their children.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the National Association of Head Teachers surveyed its members, and 90% said that they would welcome additional guidance?

[Derek Thomas]

That has already been discussed, but the hon. Lady is absolutely right to bring it up. The headteacher at my children’s school would love the Government to say, “This is what we want from your school,” and for Ofsted to reflect that in how they judge the school. I believe that an allowance of up to two weeks a year would not be detrimental if, as has been said, it is at a quiet time for formal learning. Children’s holidays should be celebrated and made part of the learning of the child who goes on holiday and of the class, which, the following week, is able to look at where that child and Elmer have been.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Poulter]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The data are generic—we know that there is a link between absence rates for all reasons and lower attainment at school. Of course we would expect pupils who are missing school regularly and not turning up for reasons such as truancy to do less well at school than those who attend regularly—there is other evidence to support that. That is the hon. Gentleman’s point, but my understanding of the data is that, generally, higher rates of absence equal lower levels of attainment.

When putting regulations in place—perfect ones are difficult, but they are there for the right reasons—we need to look at something the Minister alluded to in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay. Were we to facilitate routinely two weeks of holiday for pupils during term time, over a pupil’s school career that would represent about 24 weeks of extra holiday in school time—almost half a year of extra holiday and of lost learning time being facilitated by law. That is not something that anyone ought to want to facilitate in Government regulation. Such a situation would clearly be detrimental to a child’s development, future life chances and chances at school.

Regulations are difficult to make, but there is a reason why they are in place. We have failed to discuss the level of discretion available to headteachers at the moment and I will come on to that. It is right to have given discretion to headteachers, who may look at the circumstances involved, but there might be an issue to do with refreshing some of the guidance. Perhaps the Minister will talk about that in his response.

The background to the legislation is that parents are not now able directly to authorise absence themselves; they must do so with facilitation from the headteacher. The initial framework of the regulations was put in place by the then Labour Government in 2006 and changed by the coalition Government in 2013. Under the new regulations, headteachers may not grant leave of absence during term time unless there are exceptional circumstances.

The matter is therefore one for the headteacher. A fine for an unauthorised absence is possible, but discretion has been given to the headteacher to look at the circumstances, and they have done so in a number of cases. Clearly, in our increasingly multicultural country—something we celebrate—different religions have certain celebrations at different times of the year. Certain schools and headteachers recognise that and use those exceptional circumstances of religious celebration to exercise their discretion.

We need to look at what we want in regulation—a duty that is in effect permissive, allowing such absence, or one that allows the headteacher to look at the circumstances, making it the rule that leave should not be given without exceptional circumstances. A permissive duty would in effect allow an extra half year of holiday and missed school in pupils’ lives, so the legislation has probably come down on the right side of the argument: in support of the headteacher’s having discretion.

[Melanie Onn]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s point about a permissive duty and the responsibilities held by headteachers. Is there not also a substantial argument to support headteachers’ being given guidelines to allow for consistency, as the hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) mentioned? Should there not be an enhanced framework to support those headteachers to make such decisions and to make things a bit clearer across the board?

[Dr Poulter]

I completely agree. The hon. Lady mentioned earlier how a number of headteachers are confused about what circumstances they may consider exceptional. My hon. Friends have made similar points. Given a survey of teachers that indicates concerns about how to act and how to interpret the regulations, there is clearly something that to be said for the need to refresh the guidance so that teachers have clearer guidelines. I am sure that the Minister will address that in his remarks.

Councillor Roy Perry, chairman of the Local Government Association’s children and young people’s board, said:

“The current rules tie families to set holiday periods.”

He added that the system does not easily define what

“would class as a special occasion”,

and does not take

“into account a parent’s work life”—

a point made earlier in the debate. I believe that headteachers would benefit from clearer understanding and guidance to inform their decision on exceptional circumstances.

The other issue raised in the debate was about having staggered school holidays, which touches on a number of matters, including the business concerns. The regulations apply to England, but I was recently fortunate enough to visit Scotland, where there are clear differences in school holidays between neighbouring areas—for example, Fife had a longer October break than Edinburgh. Such flexibility might be desirable and deal with some of the concerns. That needs to be looked at.

Making legislation and regulations can be difficult. The balance is on the right side in this case, which is not actively to facilitate school-time absence, but to make it an exception, although guidance could do with being looked at. The answer might lie in clearer guidance, or in a degree of staggered school holidays. Clearly and fundamentally, we need to look after the children. Better guidance for headteachers would be better not only for the headteachers themselves, but for parents, in enabling them to understand the benefits of the policy. The policy is designed to help children receive a good education and to provide them with the best possible start in life.

Trade Union Bill

Melanie Onn Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Alan Johnson]

I think that could be described as a wildcat intervention. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman that the result of this legislation will be more wildcat strikes. Yes, there are other countries where people are not allowed to strike. Postal workers in America, for instance, are not allowed to strike. In this country, prison officers and the police are not allowed to strike. In every single system like that, there is a process of employment relations and a process to air grievances that give a distinctive advantage to those industries in getting a result. According to the Secretary of State, the Bill does not say that there are industries in which strikes should not take place; it is an effort to affect millions of trade unionists and inhibit their right to strike because of a dispute involving a few thousand people at London Underground. That is the truth of the matter.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the description of strikes as “wildcat” is wildly inaccurate, because there is a very detailed process that every organisation must go through in order to allow its members to take industrial action?

[Alan Johnson]

That is an extremely important point. Another important statistic is that one in five industrial action ballots does not lead to any industrial action being taken. That tells us, among other things, that trade unionists do not take industrial action when the support is lukewarm.

What is interesting to me is that there is nothing in this or any other Government Bill that is designed to improve industrial relations—nothing like the partnership fund or the union learning fund that we set up to encourage both sides to come together. I tell the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) that, as a junior Minister, I once presented the partnership prize, which was a substantial metal object, to the late, great Bob Crow. Two weeks later, I read in the Evening Standard that there had been a big row between the RMT and London Underground, and that the RMT rep had thrown something at the London Underground manager. I just hoped that it was not the partnership fund award that I had presented.

We took positive action to ensure that the industrial relations climate everywhere across the country was better. There is nothing in the Bill that attempts to do that. As 77 experts in the field said in a letter to The Guardian, the Bill will have the opposite effect. They said that instead of proceeding with this, to use their term, “perverse” Bill,

“the government should be looking more seriously at how to engage and involve the British workforce and its representatives in rebuilding the UK economy and raising productivity”.

I say to Government Members that the Department of Trade and Industry had a review of facility time in 2007. The officials in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills at 1 Victoria Street are exactly the same officials who were at the DTI. There was wide consultation. The outcome was that facility time provided a net advantage to the employer and the country. It was also important in raising productivity—something that this Government have a serious problem with.

With no evidence as to its necessity, the Government have pressed ahead as if this were emergency legislation, scheduling Second Reading four days after the already compressed and laughably short consultation period. The aim seems to be to ensure that our debate coincides with the first day of the Trades Union Congress—a level of immaturity not seen since members of the Bullingdon club thought it would be fun to bare their bottoms outside a convent. Perhaps the Bill was drawn up by the Bullingdon club—perhaps the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip can tell us—and it certainly could not have been constructed more maladroitly if it had been.

The Department from which this Bill emanates is under new management. I suppose we could describe the former Secretary of State as the artist formerly known as Vince, and how we miss the worldly wise maturity of the former Member for Twickenham, who obviously managed to keep the padlock on the playpen in his years at 1 Victoria Street. He described the Bill as

“vindictive, counterproductive and ideologically driven,”

and he has never spoken a truer word in his life.

The central feature of the Bill, which should be disturbing right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Benches, is that it is unprecedented, undemocratic and indefensible. Why? Because it gives a vote in trade union ballots to those who have, for whatever reason, decided not to cast their vote, and it classifies that vote in every circumstance as a “no” to industrial action. I honestly thought that the Secretary of State would give some examples of where such a measure is used. A golf club perhaps, or a local charity—anything where people who do not vote are classified as voting against. If, in a workplace of 1,000 people 499 workers vote in favour of industrial action and there is not a single vote against, that industrial action would be illegal. In the parlance of this Chamber, the noes would have it, the noes would have it.

The abstainers, the apathetic and the forgetful will have a no vote, as will those who miss the post—I love that as a former postman, but this is the only element of society where the only way that anything can be done is through the post. Communication Workers Union members are grateful, but they realise that this is not just about increasing their workload; it about attacking their rights.

If my hypothetical workplace fell under one of the six areas so far defined as important public services, a 79% yes vote on a 50% turnout would be illegal, as would a 64% yes vote on a 64% turnout. That cannot be defended. Someone could be the most rabid anti-trade union politician in the House—there may be some in the Chamber at the moment—but if their concern is for human rights and civil liberties they cannot defend that measure. It is literally indefensible.

We would not consider governing our debates in this House with such a practice. Why not govern our debates in that way if it is a democratic way to do it, so that those who do not vote are counted in the No Lobby? As the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) pointed out there is an issue about how we got our mandate on May 7, and the Secretary of State said, “Oh, but that is not a binary decision.” The European Union (Referendum) Bill that we debated last Monday is a binary decision, and we did not spend a second debating whether people who did not bother to vote should be counted as a no vote. Why not do that? If this is at all democratic, why is it not in that Bill?

--- Later in debate ---

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

I am speaking on behalf of Unison as a Unison member. Unison has over 1 million public sector workers, with low-paid, part- time women making up the majority of its membership. I welcome some of the comments I have heard from Conservative Members, particularly the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and the hon. Members for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) and for Hazel Grove (William Wragg), who are clearly sensible, reasonable Conservatives. I hope they succeed in convincing some of their colleagues that with the measures in this Bill they are grossly overreaching themselves.

The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), who is not in his place, seemed to have misunderstood some of the provisions in the Bill. He made the incorrect assumption that there is something along the lines of automatic registration for trade union membership or for political party membership as a result of that trade union membership. If someone opts in to a political fund, check-off happens when they have already signed up to be a member of a trade union, and there is automatic payment through their salary. It is important that somebody who is going to contribute to a debate understands the fundamentals of what they are talking about.

As we have heard, trade union members are cleaners, carers and drivers who simply want to get on with their jobs safely without fear of discrimination and to be rightly rewarded for it. This Bill singles those people out with armbands and authorisation documents. They are the people who care for our elderly, keep our streets clean, and mend our roads, and do not want to take industrial action—it is always the last resort. They have benefited from years of striving for rights and freedoms, and it is right that they should feel free to belong to a trade union without fear of reprisals or judgments against their character. This is now under threat through demonising them and suggesting they are prone to criminal behaviour by virtue of their trade union membership.

Many Conservative Members have lectured Labour Members on their own trade union backgrounds, and their support for and understanding of working people and their lives. Nearly all their comments have been predicated on, “I support trade unions, but”. It is perverse to claim to support trade unions with one breath and then to support this regressive Bill with another. It is already difficult to arrange a strike, with indicative ballots. My union has a 50-page document to guide people through the process of securing a ballot. I remind Conservative Members that the Financial Times says today that instead of restricting unions,

“more worker bargaining power would restore some overdue wage growth”.

Equal Pay and the Gender Pay Gap

Melanie Onn Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Nicky Morgan]

It is certainly something always to be considered. I go back to the point I made earlier. We would much rather not have discrimination and problems with pay in the first place, and ensure that everyone is paid the right amount for doing the work. The regulations requiring employment tribunals to order an equal pay audit, which is what happens when an employer is found to be in breach of equal pay law, came into force on 1 October last year. We are not aware yet of any cases where an audit has been ordered, but that is another way in which employers’ minds might be concentrated, if they are found guilty of breaching the equal pay laws.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

The right hon. Lady mentioned the review of charges in tribunals. What is of greater importance—saving £71 million, or justice for women?

[Nicky Morgan]

I know that the hon. Lady is new to the House and that she will not have seen all the debates in the previous Parliament when we talked about the impact of her party—the economic legacy left to us and the justice—[Interruption.] The issue, honestly, is that the best way to have justice for women and children, given the earlier statement by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, is to have an economy that works for all, where there are jobs for all, paying good wages, and where we help all children to reach their aspirations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

First, I must congratulate those who made maiden speeches today: the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) and the hon. Members for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) and for Stirling (Steven Paterson). Their speeches were all passionate, personal and interesting.

Let me follow up on the point my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) made about local government pay. It is not just about the job evaluations; the requirement to undertake equality impact assessments has been removed. As a Unison member, I know it has long been an issue that local government has tended to shy away from, and the Government have now given councils licence to wriggle out of that requirement. That is disappointing, as are the empty Government Benches as we draw this important debate to a close.

Major progress was made on closing the gap between men’s and women’s pay under the last Labour Government. We have heard Government Members talk about the fact that the gender pay gap is at its lowest level ever, but the progress in tackling it over the past five years has slowed inordinately under this Government and the former coalition Government. That is incredibly disappointing. The progress has slowed, along with pay, across the board.

Looking to other countries, we know that much more can be done. This should not be up for debate, and I concur with the many colleagues who have shared that sentiment. We should not be here today, in 2015, having this debate about whether anything more should be done, because the answer is clear: yes, of course it should. The Equal Pay Act was passed 10 years before I was born, yet we are still here today arguing for parity between the sexes. That Act put into law the basic principle that we should all receive the same treatment on pay and employment conditions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero) mentioned, it allows women to take their employer to a tribunal if a man doing similar work to her is being paid more, although now that is only possible if you can afford it, thanks to the barriers to accessing justice that the coalition saw fit to introduce. I remind everyone of the statistics: the number of equal pay claims has fallen by 68% but the number of claims going to tribunal has fallen by 79%, as my hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury—[Interruption.] I have entirely forgotten the name of her constituency, I am so sorry. [Interruption.] Yes, it was one of the London ones.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Melanie Onn]

Absolutely, while I try to remember the name of the constituency.

[Barbara Keeley]

I wish to raise with my hon. Friend the point that was made in our debate on sport and the Olympic legacy last week: the gross inequality between men and women in relation to payment and sponsorship in sport. That is one of the worst areas. America has the wonderful Title IX legislation, which ensures equal funding if and when it comes from the public purse, which is another thing to bear in mind. Not only is this so unequal, but, worse still, it is unequal to people such as our football team that will play in Canada tonight.

[Melanie Onn]

I could not agree more. Low pay concerns me, particularly as it is in all areas. If those who are public facing, with whom people interact more, can demonstrate the necessity of closing the gender pay gap, it will become a more prioritised issue among the general public.

I can now confirm that I was referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry). I thank my colleagues for reminding me. It is quite embarrassing to have such a public brain fade.

[Jess Phillips]

You are only a woman!

[Melanie Onn]

Yes, how can I be expected to remember such complicated information?

I was just reflecting on accessing justice, and the difficulties faced by people from across the board. This is about not just women finding it difficult to access justice through the employment tribunal system, but those who are suffering from any kind of discrimination, particularly that relating to their pay. The Equal Pay Act was a milestone in the fight for equal pay, but, clearly, the Act in itself is not sufficient to close that gap altogether, especially in today’s world of casual employment, of people working multiple jobs and of increasing levels of self-employment. I am incredibly proud that the previous Labour Government made equal pay a priority and closed the pay gap by one third during their time in office. I say again that, over the past five years, we have seen almost no progress on this issue. In their manifesto, the Conservatives made no mention of putting in place any measures to try to tackle the pay gap, even though they have accepted that it exists. Today is about Labour challenging the Government on this important issue and trying to get them to change their mind.

We have heard quite a lot today with regard to how much women earn. In my constituency of Grimsby, women earn just 77p for every £1 brought home by men. I heard today that the figure in Coventry is as low as 60p. That is a significant difference. If we do not think that that affects the home lives of the children in our country, we are deluding ourselves.

Why is this such a significant problem in my constituency compared with some other areas in the country? As I noted earlier, there has been a surge of low pay and insecure work in this country over the past few years, and that has particularly been the case in my constituency. I know, from speaking to my constituents, that it tends to be women who have to work two or three different jobs, often on casual or zero-hours contracts, because they receive such low pay. Since 2010, one in three women’s jobs has come from women registering as self-employed. That is a problem that, again, the Equal Pay Act cannot address. On average, self-employed women earn less than half the money earned by self-employed men. Women are far more likely to be in jobs that pay less than the living wage. We heard my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) talking at length and most passionately about the fact that the labour undertaken by women is given such scant value by our society.

[Chris Stephens]

The hon. Lady has made a number of excellent points, but another factor in decreasing wages has been the substantial reduction in collective bargaining in the UK since 1979. In Scotland, for example, 81% of workers’ pay was decided by collective bargaining in 1979, whereas that figure is now 23%.

[Melanie Onn]

I agree absolutely. We have seen the demise of collective bargaining in many different areas and employers are now moving further away from those agreements.

Previously, for example, the Labour Government had agreed a national arrangement for teaching assistants, but the coalition decided not to continue with the national pay negotiating body. Teaching assistants are, obviously, largely women, largely part time and largely low paid, and on term-time-only contracts. I know from my constituency and from people I have represented as an official of Unison that some earn as little as £5,000 or £7,000 a year, working in our schools and supporting our children when they most need additional support. That problem is being exacerbated by the move away from collective bargaining and those people are more prone to being exploited and having their wages squeezed.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making some powerful points in a strong speech. She has mentioned the living wage and many local authorities are trying to elevate the circumstances for low-paid workers, particularly the women workers about whom we have heard, by becoming living wage councils. Surely that is a step forward that all councils should look to take.

[Melanie Onn]

I shall come to that point shortly.

If I can just make some progress—I have been dying to say that—to tackle unequal pay, it is imperative that we tackle the low-skill, low-wage economy that is particularly detrimental to women. Much of the success of the previous Labour Government was down to the introduction of the minimum wage. With 27% of women earning less than the living wage, the Government must do more to raise wages. If they will not do that by raising the minimum wage, they must commit actively to support SME businesses to pay the living wage and legislate for FTSE 100 companies to do the same. The forthcoming cuts to tax credits will only make the problem of low pay worse. If the Government want tax credits to be replaced by higher wages, they need to be active in making that happen and should not simply cut, and cross their fingers.

I completely concur with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) about living wage councils. I have been active in securing living wage agreements in four different local authorities. That needs to be championed across the board and we must ensure that when those councils make arrangements for any contractors to undertake services on their behalf those companies should also be living wage employers.

The Government need to accept that many zero-hours contracts are exploitative and that people cannot properly manage their household budget if they do not know what they will be earning from one week to the next. The change to exclusivity clauses is welcome, but it ignores the wider problem. Something needs to be done to make the lives of people in insecure work more manageable. I will always believe that when a job exists, a proper contract of employment should be provided. The Conservative Government claim to be on the side of working people, yet when they are presented with an opportunity such as this genuinely to improve people’s working lives, they squirm about like a worm at the end of a line.

It is simply not good enough. People need change and they need it now. Take the Government’s commitment to 30 hours of free childcare for working parents. First, I am pleased to see that they have adopted another of the previous Labour Government’s pledges to support working families. In the race to win votes ahead of the general election, they made a commitment they cannot afford. It is massively underfunded. It costs on average £4.53 an hour to provide the care, but the Government are offering only £3.88 an hour. Perhaps the Minister can tell us where the rest of the money is coming from. If it comes at the expense of child tax credit or working families tax credit, the Government are merely giving with one hand but taking away with the other.

I want to finish by saying that I recently met representatives of a local charity in my constituency called Care, which provides emergency food aid in Grimsby, and they told me that the number of meals that they provide to children has increased by 27% this year alone. Unfair wages for women is a problem of basic fairness, but the fact that working women are being pushed into poverty and insecurity to the extent that they can no longer afford to feed their children is a crisis that surely demands urgent action.

Oral Answers to Questions

Melanie Onn Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)]

13. What recent estimate he has made of the proportion of jobs in the economy which are low-skilled.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

15. What recent estimate he has made of the proportion of jobs in the economy which are low-skilled.

[The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles)]

We are focused on increasing the number of jobs at all levels of skill and on investing in 3 million apprenticeships, which will help people to improve their skills and command higher wages.

[Nick Boles]

We welcome efforts by all parts of the UK to grow jobs and apprenticeships, and we have our own policies here. We will produce 3 million apprenticeship starts at all levels over the next five years, but we welcome anything else that the Welsh Government do to create jobs and apprenticeships.

[Melanie Onn]

Thanks to Labour’s groundbreaking commitment to tackling climate change, investment in wind energy in Grimsby has created much needed high-skilled jobs in our local economy. With 25% of our young people not in education, employment or training, support for that industry is essential for my constituents’ future, but the Government have now announced the removal of subsidies for onshore wind. What effect does the Minister expect that to have on investor confidence in the offshore wind sector?

[Nick Boles]

It is not my area but, as the hon. Lady said, the cut in subsidies is for onshore wind. Her constituency is focused on offshore wind, where the Government’s support is committed and going up. I welcome the high-skilled jobs that that support is bringing to her constituency, which has seen a 38% fall in the number of people claiming benefits since 2010.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Boles]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is tremendously welcome that, as a result of the recovery, it has been possible for the Government to implement this second increase in the minimum wage—and the first that is higher than the rate of increase in both inflation and average earnings—which takes the minimum wage to £6.70. We want any employer that can afford to pay the living wage, without losing jobs, to do so, and we encourage them all to think of doing so soon.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

T9. Workers at the Young’s Seafood factory in Grimsby are worried for their futures after Sainsbury’s ended a contract with it. Grimsby already has the 17th highest unemployment rate in the country, and in the past few years it has seen several established companies leave the area, leaving behind nothing to replace them. Given that the Young’s site provides 500 skilled jobs, what support can the Government offer to avoid further losses of skilled jobs?

[The Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise (Anna Soubry)]

Officials from my Department have already met people at Young’s in her constituency, following the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers). Those meetings are continuing. I assure the hon. Lady, however, that if it is bad news, all the good support she would imagine coming from the Department for Work and Pensions to make sure people can find new work will be put in place. None the less, I am more than happy to meet her and my hon. Friend to discuss the matter.