Co-operative Schools

Anne Main Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Sheerman]

The Minister is the acceptable face of the Conservative party, as is the hon. Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker), but they are atypical. The fact of the matter is that we need a real commitment to change the law. That is what we want. We do not want to muck around. We have got 837 schools. We want a change in the law, for a faster expansion—

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. Interventions should be brief and in the form of a question.

[Mr Timpson]

I like to think that I am typical of the Conservative party, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman feels the same about himself and his party. It is clear that there is a determination to drive up standards across our education system. He will appreciate that we are in the last few weeks of this Parliament, so there will be no time to change legislation. Nevertheless, we must increase and better understand the evidence base, so that co-operative schools can show the impact they are having and we can possibly widen their remit and potential in future.

The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley has met Lord Nash, and as part of her exchange with the Secretary of State for Education, she was invited to provide evidence on why we should accede to some of her suggestions, both legislative and otherwise. I look forward to receiving that evidence in due course.

Recall of MPs Bill

Anne Main Excerpts

Monday 3rd November 2014 Commons Chamber

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

The Minister is outlining how long people have to respond to a petition. Given the concerns of the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) about potentially challenging some of the signatures, is there a length of time for which that will be open to a Member, or—mañana—could it be any time? How will Members know the rules governing the process?

[Tom Brake]

I suspect that Members will look at what happens in other elections, and at the parallels we have drawn between the petition process we are establishing and other elections. If I need to say more on that issue, I will contact my hon. Friend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Main]

Currently, recognised parties have an imprinted logo on all leaflets to ensure that any leaflet that goes through a door can be traced. Will accredited campaigners have to band together under a logo? If not, how does one trace leaflets and associate them with expenditure on a campaign?

[Tom Brake]

I am not sure whether the hon. Lady is conflating having an imprint and identifying campaign groups that are working together in concert to fight against an MP. Under the rules on expenditure and the £10,000 limit, if two organisations are working together with a common campaign plan to try to get people to sign a recall petition, they will have to account for their expenditure collectively within that £10,000 limit. They cannot accumulate their expenditure. However, as we know from other elections, it is sometimes difficult to identify whether two campaign organisations are working together to oppose a particular candidate or party, because they might structure their campaigns in a way that is not entirely transparent.

--- Later in debate ---

The problem is that throughout this debate we have been constantly referring to schedules or saying, “It will be coming forward in due course.” I want to place on record our belief that before this Bill gets to the Lords, the Government will have to do significant work listening to the interventions from both sides of the Committee to satisfy hon. Members.

[Mrs Main]

The hon. Gentleman is making a valid point, in that those groups would have one aim: not to get themselves in, but to get the Member out. Therefore, it would be a much more powerful group than any the Member could field on their own behalf.

[Thomas Docherty]

I entirely agree. There is merit in further discussion about that because, as the hon. Lady says, unlike in a general election, where there would be three or four competing parties each pursuing a different goal—trying, I would hope, to get their own person elected—in this case three out of four political parties might be pursuing one goal and able to spend £30,000, while the fourth party, the party of the incumbent, would be pursuing the other goal.

I urge the Government to have a careful think and to talk to Members across the House to see whether we can establish some rules. For example, I know that some hon. Members have suggested that rather than capping what each party could spend, we should cap the total spend on the two arguments—that is, for and against recall. I hope that Ministers will consider those arguments in the weeks ahead. We do not wish to detain the Committee; I know that Ministers are listening carefully—I am grateful to see some nods from the Treasury Bench. If the Minister assures me that he will undertake to meet the hon. Member for North Down to discuss her concerns and to meet the Opposition in the days ahead, I will not seek to divide the Committee on this issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty]

It is pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. I have just three or four brief points and one substantive one. Let me begin with the substantive one.

As the Minister knows, clause 18 is the one about which Opposition Members have the most trepidation—and not just because of experiences in Scotland, but because of the recall petitions in the United States and elsewhere, and indeed because of the events that occurred in Oldham, East and Saddleworth in 2010 and the subsequent conviction in the elections court. The hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) has pressed diligently on this matter —today, in Committee last week and, if my memory serves me correctly, on Second Reading, too. Labour Members have some genuine concerns about the material that might be issued during the recall petition campaign. It does not appear to us to be absolutely clear at this stage that both accredited and unaccredited campaigners are required to abide by PPERA. The Minister’s stock reply throughout the evening has been, “We will cover this by means of regulation.” We seek a specific guarantee that the Government intend to ensure that all campaigners are covered by the requirements of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act.

[Mrs Main]

Will the Member of Parliament still be working as a Member of Parliament during the period concerned? If people write to him saying “I want to know this from you in your capacity as my Member of Parliament”, does he have to declare the costs incurred for his staff or anyone who replies to any such letters? That really does need to be sorted out if we are to have a level playing field.

[Thomas Docherty]

The hon. Lady has asked an excellent question. It is not for me to speak for the Government—yet—but I understand that during the recall petition phase, a Member of Parliament will still be a Member of Parliament. I trust that the Minister will nod his assent to that. If the petition is successful, the seat will be vacated, and the person concerned will no longer be a Member of Parliament during the period leading up to the by-election.

We need to know more details in regard to a number of issues. As I said earlier, it would be helpful to both Houses if the Government could at least produce draft regulations before the Bill goes to the Lords, if not before for the Report stage in the House of Commons. We think that there is plenty of room for potential abuse by campaigners, who, if not covered by PPERA, could make a series of unfounded allegations. We are concerned about the £500 limit, because a large number of individual constituents who had not supported an MP’s position on another issue could choose to spend £499. Although the petition itself had been called for on specific grounds of wrongdoing, it would then be possible for someone to say “My MP did not support my position on issue x or y.” There needs to be clear guidance not just on spending limits, but on what is written on the leaflets. We want Ministers to confirm that everyone will be covered by PPERA.

The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) made a valid point about the Speaker. I appreciate that we are not engaging in a broader debate on clause 19, but I think that there is scope for us to consider not just the question of who will appoint a Deputy Speaker, but the question of what will happen if the Speaker himself, or herself, is subject to recall in the future. The Government may say that if the Speaker were in prison, he or she would clearly be absent, but that might be for only one day. An expenses offence might be involved, if our proposed amendment is accepted on Report. We hope that the Government will consult Members on both sides of the House, and will consider clarifying the rules—either on Report or in the House of Lords—to ensure that if the Member of Parliament concerned is the Speaker, there will be a specific procedure enabling the Speaker to be recused from that process.

We have had a long and fulfilling debate, but I think that Ministers have plenty of homework to do. We would give them a C minus today, but they “could do better”. So far they have shown considerable attitude, if not aptitude, and we hope that when we return to the Bill on Report, their homework will be better.

Repeal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011

Anne Main Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash]

That is an important point, and I endorse very much what my hon. Friend has said.

The arrangements in the Act are effectively a stitch-up, just as they were when we first considered the Bill back in 2010. I am glad to note that section 7 contains a requirement for the Prime Minister to hold a review, and only MPs can sit on the Committee that will review this Act. The fact that the Lords had to insist on that provision demonstrates that the Government would not have got the Bill through had they not made that arrangement. The whole thing is effectively in suspension anyway, and it is therefore a natural consequence of the limbo that this unfortunate and unacceptable enactment has put in place that the Act is up for repeal, subject to what is decided in 2020. I believe that it should be reviewed much sooner than that, and I am speaking in this debate because I very much endorse the proposals of my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough and for South Dorset (Richard Drax).

On 24 November 2010 I said—and I stand by this:

“What does such innovation say about the coalition? It certainly demonstrates its determination to stack the cards firmly in favour of the coalition and the Whips.”

I said the Act was

“not modernising, but is a reactionary measure. It is not progress, but a step backwards, along the primrose path, undermining the constitutional principles that have governed our conventions and been tested over many centuries. The proposal has been conjured out of thin air, for the ruthless purpose of maintaining power irrespective of the consequences…we are supposed to be “Working together in the national interest—”

that was the theme of the moment—

“I fear that on this Bill, on this matter, we are working together against the national interest.”—[Official Report, 24 November 2010; Vol. 519, c. 318-9.]

What are the consequences of what we are now considering? The Fixed-term Parliaments Act is still in place and it should be repealed. Clearly it will not be repealed before the end of this fixed term, but I wish to dwell on a number of points that have been raised. I freely acknowledge that some of these arguments, which have not been given general circulation, were put forward by Lord Norton of Louth. I mentioned him in an intervention on the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. I hope that his Committee asked Lord Norton for his views, with which I entirely agree, and I will encapsulate them.

Lord Norton makes the point that there are real problems with the 2011 Act, and that fixed-term Parliaments limit rather than enhance voter choice. That is the real problem. I tabled an amendment on the confidence motion and the 14 days—I do not need to go into that now because it was not accepted although the vote was quite close with only about 50 in it. I tabled an amendment to the arrangements that were being proposed at the time, and it certainly evoked an interesting and lively debate. My concern was that the whole parade that would take place within the 14 days, including the confidence motion and its arrangements, would be very much governed by powerful whipping to ensure that people fell into line with what the Government wanted. I was concerned that there would be a constant stream of people walking up and down Whitehall, just as we saw on television screens when the coalition was being put in place, and that the people who would make the final decision on the final wording about the holding of a confidence motion—including an affirmation after 14 days that the House had confidence in the Government—would not only be driven by the Whips, but would exclude the voters. Surely that is the real point. Why are we here? Who elects us? It is not our House of Parliament or our Government: it is the voters’. If things have gone completely awry and there is a case for an early election, as prescribed by the Act, the simple principle is that we should go back to the voters. We should not have a stitch-up within the Government, with the Whips making certain that people vote accordingly.

Fixed-term Parliaments limit rather than enhance voter choice. The outcome of one election cannot be undone until the end of the stipulated term. One Government could collapse and inter-party bargaining could produce another. In those circumstances, voters would be denied the opportunity to endorse what amounts to a new Government. That is a fatal position for us to have adopted. It is so undemocratic. Indeed, an unstable and ineffective Government may stagger on without achieving anything—we heard remarks to that effect from the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell).

In 1991, the then Leader of the House of Lords, Lord Waddington put it thus:

“Is it better for a government unable to govern to go to the country to try to obtain a new mandate or for the same government to spend their time fixing up deals in which the unfortunate electorate has no say whatsoever? The people not the parties should decide who governs.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 May 1991; Vol. 529, c. 260.]

What wise words. In essence, fixed-term Parliaments rob the system of our hallowed flexibility and limit voter choice. That choice is limited by this Act.

Although the policy of the Liberal Democrats was for four-year Parliaments—I concede that—agreement was reached quickly in May 2010 for a five-year term, and the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws), who has written about that period, indicated that the object of the Act was to allow time to implement plans before worrying about the timing of the electoral cycle. But five-year terms mean that the voters have fewer opportunities than before to go to the polls, and most post-war Parliaments have not gone their maximum length—now a five-year term is an absolute requirement.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that by having a maximum length—which is not the norm, as most Parliaments lasted slightly under four years—the voters are denied the right to say what they think about policies and perhaps change their mind sooner rather than later?

[Sir William Cash]

As ever, my hon. Friend makes huge sense. These are simple questions. It is not an abstract, theoretical argument: it is about the simple question of whether, if the Government are ineffective or have gone badly wrong, they should be kept together with Sellotape because they satisfy the requirements to stay in a coalition—which is itself a stitch-up—under a provision in an Act of Parliament. As I wrote to the Prime Minister in my letter of 10 May 2010, that will work against the interests of voters and, effectively, the national interest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

I do not accept that proposition, but we do not have time to go through all the implications. I also completely repudiate his suggestion of a written constitution, and I suspect what the hon. Gentleman has just said has something to do with that.

The revelations by the right hon. Member for Yeovil about the coalition negotiations also implicitly accepted the argument that fixed-term Parliaments facilitate long election campaigns. That is where we are now. We are in an election campaign already, and questions arise about the amount of money that is being generated for financing purposes. That is a practical objection, the realities of which we are seeing as I speak. MPs are not expected to be very visible in Westminster during this Session, and I need only look at the Opposition Benches to see that only two Opposition Members are listening to this debate.

As was made clear in evidence to the House of Lords Constitution Committee, knowing well in advance when the next election will take place encourages Governments to manipulate the economic cycle to their maximum advantage. That is a not unknown characteristic of Chancellors of the Exchequer, and we will have the autumn statement soon. But that substantial question has to be addressed.

The Act was a consequence of the need to build trust between coalition partners, and that is clear from all the books that have been written about the stitching up of the coalition. There was no agreement by the Conservative party that I would regard as proper agreement. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough said, we had a meeting at which we were told certain things about what was going on between the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats, and there was some doubt about that, if I may put it that way.

[Mrs Main]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the public made no mention of their desire for a fixed-term Parliament when we were out campaigning?

[Sir William Cash]

That is true. There was no consultation or any attempt to discuss the implications for the voters. The negotiators were not particularly well versed in constitutional arrangements and the Act did not do what its short title suggests. In fact, the Act provides for semi-fixed terms. It includes provisions that allow early elections in certain circumstances, so to call it a fixed-term Parliament is a misnomer. Certain procedures would allow an early election. It is just that the circumstances that would enable that early election would be stitched up—as was the original coalition. They would enable early elections, but to what extent would the voters be involved? That is essentially undemocratic, and it also gives false hope that voter choice may not be as limited as under strict fixed-term provisions.

An election can be triggered if a vote of no confidence is carried against the Government and, within 14 days, a new Government is unable to carry a vote of confidence, or if two thirds of all MPs vote for an early election. It can also be triggered if everyone agrees on the need for an early election, but that seems extremely improbable. It is difficult to imagine when the idea of two-thirds of all MPs voting for an early election could ever be employed. Parties are hardly likely to vote for an early election if the opinion polls are not propitious. A Government could seek an early election by engineering a vote of no confidence in themselves, but, for heaven’s sake, if that were to be the case—I have had that put forward as quite a serious proposal—it is hardly likely to promote the reputation of, and confidence in, the parliamentary system.

The Fixed-term Parliaments Act says nothing about what happens where a Government implode and then resign but the provisions in the Act are not triggered. We would then be in what has been described as the Belgian situation—Parliament continuing without a Government being in existence. I believe profoundly that the Act is an aberration. I think it is wrong. I think it is undemocratic. I think it requires repeal. I am aware that there is provision for it potentially to be repealed in 2020 under section 7, but it should happen much sooner, and as soon as possible.

National Minimum Wage

Anne Main Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Umunna]

I am appalled by that. My hon. Friend is right to mention enforcement. I will come to that, but I pay tribute to his work—I have been to his constituency—on ensuring that those who work hard get a decent day’s pay, in addition to his work on training and apprenticeships, which he has talked about a lot.

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

In the interests of fair pay for a fair day’s work, does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that so many right hon. and hon. Members, including many Opposition Members, pay absolutely nothing to some of the young people who work in this place? He should campaign to ensure that all hon. Members pay a fair wage for a fair day’s work.

[Mr Umunna]

I do not know to whom the hon. Lady refers, but in my experience, my Labour colleagues have always sought to ensure that those who work for them are paid a decent wage. I am sure that she, like others, might occasionally, as I do in my constituency office, have sixth-formers who are work experience students. Their situation is different from those whom hon. Members employ, but if hon. Members employ somebody to work for them, they should be paid a decent wage.

I spoke of the evolution of the national minimum wage and what Labour wants to do. With that in mind, we asked the former deputy chair of KPMG, Alan Buckle, to consult business, trade unions and others on how we can strengthen the minimum wage and restore its value. In so doing, Mr Buckle consulted many companies extensively. There is a growing body of opinion that the value of the minimum wage should rise. Sir Ian Cheshire, chief executive of Kingfisher, Jeremy Bennett, chief executive officer for Europe for Nomura, and Steve Marshall, the executive chairman of Balfour Beatty, are among those who are calling, as the economy recovers, for the minimum wage to increase faster than it has in the recent past. They say that that will benefit businesses and improve the public finances—the fall in the real value of the minimum wage since 2010 now costs the Exchequer £270 million a year in additional benefit and tax credit payments, a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), the shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, will build on later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Umunna]

My hon. Friend raises a good point, and I will come to it very shortly.

[Mrs Main]

I can accept that there are some abuses of zero-hours contracts but, as someone who formerly worked as a supply teacher I would caution against getting rid of all zero-hours contracts. Our health and education services rely on people picking up casual contracts—if that is how the hon. Gentleman wants to put it—so that we fill in the gaps when there are shortfalls. It is not always a demon policy to have zero-hours contracts.

[Mr Umunna]

I hear what the hon. Lady says about some zero-hours contracts—if memory serves me correctly, I may have been on one myself when I was a student—but the point is that we are seeing far too many exploitative zero-hours contracts. That is the problem, and we are not going to sit on our hands when we are faced with that situation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Hancock]

No, because every year the Government present evidence to the Low Pay Commission of what level of pay the economy can support. In fact, I can go further. Today, we are publishing the economic evidence that is going in to the Low Pay Commission. It shows what level of pay the Government believe can be supported. It shows that the recovering economy is creating jobs, with unemployment falling faster than any country in the G7. Indeed, the Low Pay Commission has said that it can raise the national minimum wage in real terms this year only because of that recovering economy. Government analysis underpinning today’s evidence projects that on the Office for Budget Responsibility’s economic earnings forecast, the minimum wage is set to reach £8.06 by 2020—only because of the recovering economy.

[Mrs Main]

Did the Minister note—I am sure he did—that the shadow Secretary of State said that there would be some “flexibility” in the plans, but without saying what that flexibility entails? It seems to me that this is a fudge; there is not really any particular figure that he is looking towards.

[Matthew Hancock]

I was going to come on to that. The hon. Member for Streatham made an important admission today. I think it is the first time that Labour has admitted that if the £8 target was going to damage the economy, there would be “flexibility”, as my hon. Friend said. Within a month the hon. Gentleman has completely undone the promise that was made with such loud cymbals at the party conference. It was a promise made for a party conference by a desperate party leader who is struggling to get his message across. Today, it has been completely undermined by the man who wants to replace him as party leader after Labour loses the next election.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I am truly grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you took the point of order from my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), because the fact that he has been maligned by the shadow Secretary of State for Education so publicly on the media means that he will probably now be touring the media studios having to explain that he did not make the comments attributed to him. I seriously hope that the Member who made those allegations comes here as quickly as possible to explain in the public domain, not just by sending a text, that my hon. Friend did not make those comments, from which I am sure that many of us would dissociate ourselves.

I am glad that I heard all the previous speeches, but particularly that I heard about the flexibility that the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) is building into his plans. One of the things I have learned about being bendy in life is that it allows one to do U-turns. We now know that Labour does not have a firm promise, as was said at the party conference, to deliver a “greater than £8 an hour” minimum wage, and there is flexibility about that. That means, of course, that in reality, with a poor and failing economy like the one we inherited from it, Labour will deliver less than the £8.06 an hour that is projected by us. This debate has revealed the fact that the shadow Secretary of State is distancing himself from that commitment. Today Labour has illustrated the fact that it is prepared to be flexible about having £8 an hour while we desire to have a greater amount of £8.06 an hour.

I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) is not still here; he has probably had to pop out for something very important. As I said in an intervention, I completely agree with what he said about his ten-minute rule Bill on the payment of interns. We are talking about the minimum wage in this very privileged place. Many of us are glad to be here, but many of us have had to take second jobs, or whatever, to make sure that we could afford to be here, while some people here are very wealthy and can afford to be here. It is appalling that once we have got here we seem to forget that a lot of young people would like to work for us, but then they read on the “Working for an MP” website that interns are paid only expenses. That means that they are not being paid the minimum wage. I can see the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) looking at me at this point.

I believe that we should set an example in this place. The hon. Member for Streatham, who has now left, said that I was talking about work experience of a few weeks for sixth-formers, but no, I am not. All of us may have people with us doing work experience. I encourage that from those of any political persuasion in my constituency, and I do have young people coming in for a few days or a week. However, that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about the fact that MPs, with the expense accounts accorded to us to make sure that we can pay our staff proper rates in accordance with the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority guidance, will still consider having people doing long hours in important jobs for expenses only, which often fall far below the level of the minimum wage.

The hon. Member for Leeds West might want to intervene on me, but I believe that she has had a series of interns who have not been paid the minimum wage. There is a website in operation that says whether an MP will pay for an internship. I do not believe that anyone should work for free or for very little, and that applies in this place and outside this place. If we cannot uphold the principle here, it is very hard to make the argument to employers outside.

I look forward to a revisiting, I hope, of what interns can expect should they come to work for Members in this House. Otherwise we will perpetuate the fact that this is a place of privilege and so people need to be able to have the bank of mum and dad to pay their bills in order to come here and work for a pittance for an MP. That is wrong, and it should go now. We should guarantee at least the minimum wage to anyone who comes to work in this place. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) said that he had joined a strike of members of staff here so that they could have the living wage. Good on him, but let us remember the interns who come through this place, often on short-term six-month contracts, who cannot strike and cannot have the same rights accorded to them. We as Members should think about those people, many of whom are young and aspirational.

[Andy Sawford]

Last year I had a person, Vincent Torr, working with me on the Speaker’s scheme, which was properly funded. That was a fantastic scheme for which we should pay tribute to Mr Speaker and my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), who supported it. Does the hon. Lady agree that that shows us the way?

[Mrs Main]

I am in favour of any schemes that ensure that if young people want to come and work in this place, they can afford to do so. They should not have to subsidise themselves in order to be able to get here and find out what it is like to work in politics.

[Andy McDonald]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Mrs Main]

Briefly, because I have a few more comments to make.

[Andy McDonald]

Is the hon. Lady not aware of the Conservative party auctioning internships to serve with J. P. Morgan? How does that sort of attitude, whereby people are purchasing places with companies like that, fit in?

[Mrs Main]

I think I have made myself very clear. I have never had an intern work for me whom I have not paid, and I will not do so. Sometimes I am constrained as to the numbers of staff I can have, and I budget accordingly. Unless the hon. Gentleman condemns any Labour Member who does not do the same, I am not interested in auctioning internships. I believe I have made it very clear that young people should be paid if they work for Members of the House of Commons.

I should like to turn to zero-hours contracts. Other Members have said that zero-hours contracts should be abolished because they are awful and appalling, and are sometimes not proper jobs. There are examples of all those things, but, as I said in an intervention, let us be aware that zero-hours contracts do not always provide a dreadful solution. They sometimes provide a very necessary solution for bank nurses, supply teachers, and other people filling gaps where suddenly there arises a vacancy. I speak as someone who has been in that situation myself. When my husband died and I was a single parent, I was glad to work as a supply teacher so that I could work around the needs of my young children—for example, sometimes they were ill and could not go to school. Opposition Members condemn all zero-hours contracts, but if we were to get rid of them, our health and education services, to name but two, would probably grind to a halt within a few days or weeks. It is very necessary to have contracts that give flexibility in the delivery of these services.

The most crucial thing that will come out of this Opposition day debate is the fact that Labour has declared that it does not have a promise or a guarantee of a greater than £8 an hour minimum wage but a flexible target of £8 an hour that can be abandoned at any moment. I hope that the electorate out there will take note of that when its leaflets come through their doors.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whiteford]

My hon. Friend makes a valuable point.

I want to touch on another issue that has been mentioned by others, namely the disproportionate number of disabled workers and minority ethnic workers in minimum wage jobs. We have already heard about Lord Freud’s disgraceful comments and I hope the Government will step back from what was an outrageous thing to say about people who are already disadvantaged in the labour market.

[Mrs Main]

I am sure the hon. Lady will also condemn the slur against my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) by an Opposition spokesman, who said it was he who made those remarks.

[Dr Whiteford]

Absolutely.

Free Schools (Funding)

Anne Main Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Gentleman is asking whether the Minister for Schools agrees with the Minister for Schools. I can confirm that he does. I can also confirm that there is good news for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents. Under the last Labour Government, only £33 million was spent on providing new primary school places in his constituency. Under this coalition Government, £40 million is being spent. I am sure that he will welcome that additional investment, which has been secured by this coalition Government.

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

Clive Glover is leading a group of parents who hope to have a free school on the Harperbury hospital site. A feasibility study is happening now. What worries me, given that this might happen in 2015, is the lack of clarity about the position of the Labour party. It does not seem to have the same commitments. With local elections happening, I think that residents should know what the Labour party thinks about free schools.

[Michael Gove]

rose—

Oral Answers to Questions

Anne Main Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I assume the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) calculated that Question 19 on Ofsted would not be reached. That is not of itself an excuse to shoehorn the matter into a question some considerable number of minutes earlier.

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

Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree with me that one of the best indicators to getting good attainment in maths and English is attendance at school? So what more can be done to ensure communities who do not always have a very good attendance record at school—sometimes the Traveller community, as in my constituency—are encouraged to make sure parents ensure their children attend school in settled fashion?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend, and under this Government persistent absence has reduced and we have given head teachers and teachers more power to make sure parents are ensuring their children are at school. Furthermore, we are consulting on the rules around the Gypsy-Roma Traveller community to make sure there is every encouragement for all children to get the vital education they need.

Qualified Teachers

Anne Main Excerpts

Wednesday 30th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Tristram Hunt]

My hon. Friend makes a brilliant point: that pedagogy, as well as subject knowledge, is absolutely essential. It seems bizarre that we simply do not want the best-skilled teachers possible.

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

First, may I reassure the hon. Gentleman that I do not have an obsession with him? I speak as someone who also has a PGCE to my name on top of my degree, but please do not confuse being qualified and being able to teach pupils with bits of paper. I have seen plenty of excellent teachers without PGCEs and some pretty poor ones with, and I think the hon. Gentleman is getting the two rather mixed up.

[Tristram Hunt]

This is about reducing the risk in the teaching system. This is about making sure we go up the value chain in terms of qualifications and teacher capacity.

As it has been raised, let me deal with the issue of non-qualified teachers in the private sector. First, figures from the Independent Schools Council show that 90% of those teaching in such schools have a teaching qualification and over 70% have qualified teacher status. Secondly, if head teachers in the private sector wish to employ teachers without QTS, that is their decision. But a Labour Government will demand a minimum standard of QTS for those teaching within the state system. As Secretary of State for Education, I am not going to allow for the deregulatory free-for-all which produces the likes of Al-Madinah.

School Governors and School Improvement

Anne Main Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Westminster Hall

[Jenny Chapman]

rose—

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. This is a 30-minute debate, and the hon. Gentleman who called the debate has graciously allowed another colleague to speak for a minute or two. The Minister also needs to make a full reply. I therefore ask for any interventions to be brief.

[Jenny Chapman]

I am grateful for your guidance, Mrs Main. I shall be brief. In my experience, local authorities have always put on a great deal of training, but it was not well attended and its quality was questionable. How can we ensure that the quality of training is improved now that schools are far more independent?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

I call Mr Graham Stuart, who has two minutes.

GCSEs

Anne Main Excerpts

Tuesday 11th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

Into every life a little rain must fall. May I say to the hon. Gentleman that the fault lies, I fear, with those who have not been as anxious to preserve the rigour in the examination system as our regulator, Ofqual. I will say no more.

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

I welcome the removal of grade inflation—we owe it to our young people to have a value system that everyone recognises. However, as someone of Welsh heritage, who got all my qualifications in Wales, I am very concerned that certain qualifications will now have greater merit than others, which will disadvantage poorer communities, and some employers will not understand the two sorts of qualifications that may come about.

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend puts her finger on a really important issue. One thing that I am anxious to do is to secure, with the help of the regulator, a proper understanding that can help us to encourage those responsible for qualifications in Wales to recognise which changes are appropriate and which are not.

Forced Conversion of Schools to Academies

Anne Main Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2013 Westminster Hall

[John Pugh]

That is clearly an option, because we in Sefton are not overly impressed by academies. The first school to be awarded academy status—coincidentally, one that tried to opt out before but failed to secure parental support—was subsequently inspected by Ofsted; our first academy was put into special measures and the head teacher and chairman of governors have now gone. The brokers are now in Sefton and, having failed to tempt the more prestigious schools, are pouncing like vultures not necessarily on the weakest but on those temporarily weakened.

I understand that there is a rationale for that, and I do not want to be unkind to Government policy. Schools must be in certain categories, failing or failing to improve, and in such circumstances arguably someone must intervene. The categories, however, have in practice been extended beyond the permanent sink schools or those that are sinking. In one case in Sefton, an otherwise good school had four heads in six years, which caused temporary instability over a short period, but the school and the authority could deal with that. In another case, to which the hon. Gentleman alluded earlier, in the school I attended as a child, there was a temporary and wholly uncharacteristic blip and a firm expectation that the school would improve with or without academy status. None of the bullied schools, for that is what they feel they are, has a poor record over time. Even if they had, what is the case for cutting the umbilical cord with a local authority that has a clear record of improving its schools? What is the case for encouraging the schools, as was done, to seek sponsors some appreciable distance away? A school in the northern part of Sefton was asked to look at a sponsor in Chester or in Bolton, or to consider a chain.

I run out of any coherent educational rationale when encountering arguments to suggest that a change in leadership will help a school whose main problem is that it has had too many changes in leadership; that is when my brain starts to hurt. What appears to have happened is that academies have become ends in themselves, not a means to an end. Instead of academies being a means to school improvement, success is measured by the number of academies, not their products. Can the Minister confirm whether new secondary schools converting will not only be paid for attracting pupils—for success—but be given an under-occupancy payment of £18,000 for three years for failing to attract pupils? In the old days, I am not sure what the Audit Commission which taxed us about surplus places would have had to say about that; fortunately, we have taken the precaution of abolishing it.

The Government can go further; if they want, they can lower the threshold for intervention, they can extend and widen the categories, or they can put pressure—heaven forbid—on Ofsted to toughen up the regime, or make it more partial or timed to suit the academy bounty hunters. There is a real worry that the neutrality of Ofsted might be under pressure and, equally, there is a worry about Ofsted’s reliability. If it delivered a rogue inspection, as it occasionally will, given the nature of things, that could have significant consequences for any school that is the victim of such an inspection. The broker who came to Sefton was asked by a head teacher what would happen if an academy chosen to sponsor a school was failed by Ofsted. The broker said that that will not happen. I do not know how the broker could know that it would not happen but clearly, if so, that seems to indicate that Ofsted is more shackled than we believe or hope it is.

I cannot explain this whole situation educationally any more, although I have sincerely tried. I have run out of any educational rationale that makes sense to me. I can explain it only sociologically. I hazard a guess—it might be right—that Ministers neither like nor understand and do not empathise with councils; they simply think that the sort of people you get on councils should not manage or interfere with the nation’s schools. That is a possible view, if slightly prejudiced, but it is not wholly incomprehensible if you look at some of the more eccentric London boroughs. It is understandable that if you have achieved a good education in an independent school, and contrast that with those with a less fortunate or privileged outcome, you might think—

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. I have been quite tolerant with the hon. Gentleman, but he keeps accusing me of doing so many things, in particular in London boroughs, that I would appreciate it if he spoke through the Chair.

[John Pugh]

I am sorry; I was talking about any individual, not you in particular, Mrs Main. I will express myself in whatever way you find appropriate.

One—I think that is all right—might suppose that what is crucial to the success of education is the independence of the school. That is an understandable view. It is a simplistic and probably wrong view, but I can understand people taking it and it providing them with the motive for feeling that academies are an all-sufficient solution.

Another interpretation might be that there is an unstated plot to reorganise schools into private chains rather than in LEAs; if so, we could legitimately debate that at some point. It is likely that many primary schools, if they become academies, will form part of chains. There is nothing particularly wrong with chains, and there have been great ones in the past: Blue Coat schools, Merchant Taylors’ schools, the Woodard foundation, Haberdashers’ Aske’s schools and so on; and, in the state system, organisations such as the Christian Brothers, or the Salesian or Notre Dame schools. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with chains; they are often founded for the poor but usually end up serving the rich. The model is particularly in favour with the Minister responsible for academies, Lord Nash, who I understand supports a chain of some sorts himself.

In the past, however, huge gains to the educational system were not achieved by virtue of the state handing people 125-year leases; normally, it was done by philanthropists digging deep into their pockets. If there is a real agenda, and such motivations are genuinely behind the strange set of phenomena we are seeing at the moment, I am happy to debate that. Let us not, however, have this forced choice, with underhand persuasion and inducement.

In my years as a teacher, the worst sort of bullying was not the stuff that one saw and could stop but the stuff that was not seen and took place away from view. If nothing else, through this debate I hope to bring the bullying of schools, rather than in schools, to people’s attention.

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Before I call other hon. Members to speak, I inform Members that I will be calling the wind-ups at 3.40 pm. I ask Members to keep interventions brief please. I call Guy Opperman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rosie Cooper]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is nothing like five years. I would be happy to supply him with the detail. There are four schools involved, and each is different.

The situation in areas such as Lancashire has been manufactured under the pretext of improving underperforming schools. That raises the question why the National Audit Office report stated:

“most converters…have been outstanding and good schools”.

In a letter to me on 31 January, the chief executive of Conservative-controlled Lancashire county council wrote:

“we do not understand why some rapidly improving schools are being targeted for academy conversion.”

We are back to the myth-creating: everyone is told a school is failing, when the truth is that it had a blip and its performance is improving. We are then told to make it an academy, and, in a couple of years, it is claimed that the success is the result of academisation. We are encouraged to ignore the good work and the fact that the improvement would probably have happened anyway.

From the safety of Westminster, the Education Secretary has called Conservative-controlled Lancashire county council a “failing education authority”. That makes me wonder on what basis he claims that it is failure. I am sure he would say it is performance. However, he is probably referring to the academy conversion rate.

Let us look at performance. Some 69% of schools in Lancashire have improved, compared with the national average of 29%, and that is to be commended. However, according to the Secretary of State, the academy conversion rate in Lancashire is just 3%, compared with the national average of 9%. Is that the source of his frustration? Just four out of 484 Lancashire primary schools have chosen to become academies, while three others are in the process of being forced to become academies.

In November, the Education Secretary wrote to MPs to ask them to do his bidding by getting our schools to become academies. I doubt whether he will be welcomed with open arms by Conservative candidates campaigning in the forthcoming county council elections in Lancashire.

Let me be clear: failure and unacceptable performance in our schools cannot and should not be tolerated. By the same token, however, the sustained and cynical denigration of the hard work of our schools and schoolchildren should not be tolerated, simply because those schools are not academies. Perhaps the Department for Education, to refer to comments made earlier, should apply its anti-bullying policies to itself and its agents.

All the evidence points to a Department that is ideologically wedded to the promotion of academies for all, rather than the best education for all. In our education system, only 10% of all state schools are academies and free schools, and the figure for primary schools is only 5.3%. Yet one third of Department for Education staff are assigned to the academies and free schools programme, which accounts for 18% of the Department’s revenue and capital budget—a level completely disproportionate to the size of the programme. Then we come to the £1 billion overspend. No doubt that money is being taken from the budgets for non-academy schools, many of which most need that investment.

The whole situation is compounded by the Gove army of brokers. Given that they earn up to £700 a day, some might suggest they are more like mercenaries. I would suggest they are conflicted mercenaries, because many are alleged to have connections to academy chains. These conflicted mercenaries—these brokers—are running round the country offering inducements of £40,000, plus £25,000 for legal costs. That approach to academisation is deplorable, and it is all being done because of the ideological war being waged by the Education Secretary.

Our ambition and aspiration should always be to ensure that our children have access to the best possible standards of education from the start to the end of their school life. Simply forcing schools to become academies is not the solution. We know that one-size-fits-all policy making does not work. In our schools, we need good, strong leadership from the head teacher and governing bodies, with investment in schools buildings and school resources, irrespective of whether the school is LEA controlled or an academy. There should be a consensus among parents, teachers, governors and the community about the type of school they want; that decision should not be forced on the community.

I agree that we need to ensure that all schools reach the required standards. However, we should do so based on the needs of the individual school and its children, not on the imposition of a one-size-fits-all model driven by ideology. I am sure the Minister has come here today replete with the usual lines about school improvement, education for the 21st century and investment, but I remind her that we are talking about the forced conversion of schools into academies.

My message to the Minister is this: nobody believes you. As each day passes, fewer and fewer people believe you.

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sure the hon. Lady does not mean to imply that nobody believes me; I think she means that nobody believes the Minister, although she may wish to say that in the most parliamentary way possible.

[Rosie Cooper]

My apologies. It is certainly catching today.

My message to the Minister is that nobody believes her. As each day passes, fewer and fewer people believe her. For most schools—certainly in Lancashire—the answer to her academies is still a resounding no. I implore you: please stop bullying, stop the bribery and get back to supporting all schools and all children.

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

I call Mr David Ward, who I am sure is not accusing me of bullying or bribing anyone.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Slaughter]

On a point of order, Mrs Main, the Minister is not giving way because she wishes to answer the questions, but she is not addressing the subject of the debate at all.

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

That is not a point of order.

[Elizabeth Truss]

My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham also outlined academies’ freedoms over term times, the school day and pay and conditions. We have heard positive reports about ARK academies and the fact that they have a longer school day. E-ACT has supported the Blakely academy to set higher teacher pay to bring in top-quality teachers.

We should bear it in mind that intervention takes place where schools are underperforming—where there is a problem. At meetings with governing bodies, where schools are in Ofsted categories of concern, a broker discusses sponsorship options and aims to agree a schedule of actions. As is necessarily the case in an underperforming school, that can sometimes appear challenging—of course, it can. We are saying that what is happening at that school is not delivering for the children. It is important that they receive the best possible education.