Oral Answers to Questions

Lisa Cameron Excerpts

Thursday 8th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Jones]

My hon. Friend raises an important issue. It is a condition of an operator’s passenger licence that it must publish a disabled persons protection policy. That covers how the needs of visually impaired, deaf or hard of hearing people are met with regard to AV systems, including in times of delay or disruption. DPPPs have to be approved by the Office of Rail and Road. Additionally, disability awareness training is mandatory for all customer-facing staff and managers in train operating companies.

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

This week, the all-party parliamentary group for disability published an informative report on measures to close the disability employment gap. One of the issues raised by disabled people is the cutting of benefits, which reduces their independence and results in the removal of their Motability vehicles. When will the Government reverse this disabling policy?

[Andrew Jones]

The hon. Lady raises a very important question. I will have to look into this matter and reply to her in writing.

Education, Skills and Training

Lisa Cameron Excerpts

Wednesday 25th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Seema Kennedy (South Ribble) (Con)]

It is pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), who are both great champions of their constituents. It is a great honour to speak in this debate on the Gracious Speech.

Many hon. Members have spoken passionately about education, skills and training. It is absolutely vital that, as a nation, we get these elements right if we want to build up a cohort of our fellow citizens who are ready to face the world of work at 18 or 22, but also later in their lives as lifelong learners, because our workforce is changing, and our economy is changing, in a profound a long-lasting way.

I pay tribute to the Federation of Small Businesses for its excellent report, “Going it alone, moving on up: Supporting self-employment in the UK”, which provided many of the statistics that I will use in the next few minutes. Today 15% of the workforce is self-employed, compared with 8% in 1980. To support this strong and growing economy, we, as legislators, need to be as nimble as those entrepreneurs—that 15% of our constituents. There is always a balance between laissez-faire and red tape, and in our legislative programme we need to adapt to the changing economy.

I have great hopes of some of the Bills in the Gracious Speech, but I also have some questions for Ministers, and some suggestions on three Bills in particular. I would like to begin by speaking briefly on the better markets Bill. Competition law is always one step behind the market; I speak as somebody who spent part of my training in a competition law department. I very much welcome this Bill to keep pace with the changing markets. I welcome the “faster switching” principle for energy suppliers. I have done that myself, as have many other right hon. and hon. Members, I am sure. I particularly welcome the clarification of the roles of economic regulators. We are dealing with very adept businesses—people who are highly lawyered—and if, as legislators, we want to protect consumers, we need strong measures in place.

I want to speak briefly about the regulation of one market that is quite unsexy but utterly vital—the water market. Last summer, my constituents in South Ribble, along with another 300,000 households in Lancashire, had no drinkable water for one month. The contamination of cryptosporidium in our drinking water had a massive effect on consumers and, particularly, on small businesses in the catering industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) has spoken about this because, of course, he has many cafés and restaurants in his constituency. That incident highlighted very clearly the monopolistic nature of the water market.

I am therefore happy that from April next year a new non-household retail water and waste water market will be opening up. However, I am concerned about the implications of this new regime for small businesses and sole traders, because after the cryptosporidium outbreak many small businesses found it hard to access the compensation—the process was not quite as simple as for domestic consumers. Ofwat has clearly stated that part of its remit in this new water market is to ensure that the market operates effectively. It has made representations to DEFRA Ministers that the guaranteed service standards should cover all non-household customers in the market. Unfortunately, there are no Business, Innovation and Skills Ministers present, but I am sure we will be told whether anyone from that Department has discussed the issue with DEFRA and whether the guaranteed service standards will be rolled into the better markets Bill.

From one unsexy subject—water and sewerage—to another, namely savings and pensions. Our national statistics on savings are woeful compared with those of our EU neighbours. The French save about twice as much as we do.

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that, if we are to address that issue, it is extremely important that financial education on both savings and financial management is taught at school?

[Seema Kennedy]

I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Lady. Some 21 million people in this country do not even have £500 of savings. As she has said, part of the reason for that is lack of financial education. I welcome the lifetime savings Bill, which will provide a flexible product that enables young people to save for a home and for their retirement, and the increase in the individual savings account limit.

The statistics on savings for the self-employed are even worse than those for the nation as a whole. Only 31% of respondents to the FSB survey said that they are saving into a pension, compared with 59% of people who are employed. The remaining respondents intend to rely on their business and existing savings, and about 15% of them have absolutely no savings or pension plan. The lifetime ISA is welcome, but are there any plans to adapt it to suit the new and growing cohort of the self-employed? The age restriction limits it to the under-40s and there is growing evidence that more of the self-employed are aged 45 or over. I hope that the Government will consider finding ways of encouraging and normalising savings for the self-employed, because they do not get the same nudges that auto-enrolment gives people who are employed.

On the pensions Bill, I will not repeat the statistics of self-employed people who have no pension or savings plan, but I urge the Government to consider carefully the needs of the self-employed. The Work and Pensions Committee has made submissions about the issue, particularly in relation to the National Employment Savings Trust auto-enrolment scheme, to which MPs have signed up our own employees. It is very good, but it also needs to include a solution for the self-employed.

In an ideal world, the self-employed will go on to become micro-employers, or perhaps even large employers, and set up their own pension fund. There needs to be adequate communication with micro-businesses about their obligations under auto-enrolment, which can be burdensome. Once small businesses do set up pensions, robust regulation needs to be in place to ensure that such funds give good returns and are adequately protected.

The Bills on which I have touched briefly are welcome in adapting to our changing workforce. I look forward to seeing the detail as they progress through this place.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lisa Cameron Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Nick Boles]

I think my hon. Friend is right about that, because there is a common misconception that apprenticeships are somehow only really appropriate for school leavers, whereas the reality is that they offer opportunities to people at all stages in their lives, and indeed at all stages in their careers. It is not just for new recruits to an employer; it can be for somebody who has been working for an employer for several years but has discovered that they have the potential to develop.

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

6. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the support and guidance for businesses on employing people on the autistic spectrum.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Life Sciences (George Freeman)]

Through our one nation reforms, we are committed to a labour market that allows everyone to fulfil their obligations and opportunities wherever and whoever they are, including those with autism. That is why the Prime Minister launched the Disability Confident campaign, and why we have continued to spend over £100 million a year on the Access to Work scheme, helping over 36,000 people with disabilities into work. We have published guidance to employers on employing people with autism, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Skills and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise recently met Autism UK and the all-party group on autism.

[Dr Cameron]

The autism employment gap is much larger than the disability employment gap, with only 15% in full-time employment and 26% of graduates remaining employed. We are losing the potential that people with autism spectrum disorder can offer to our economy. What specific programmes and support will be provided to employers and jobseekers to close this startling gap, and will the Government produce disaggregated data to evidence progress?

[George Freeman]

The hon. Lady makes an important point, and I pay tribute to her work on this. As I said, we are investing substantially in this area, and through the Disability Confident campaign, we are actively engaging with employers of different sizes and sectors to promote access to work for people with autism. We launched the latest part of that campaign on World Autism day, on 2 April. We do not think that quotas are the right way to go. We want to encourage employers and we want those with autism to know that good employers will recognise and reward their skills.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lisa Cameron Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

The Government have pledged to halve the disability employment gap. What is the Minister doing to ensure that disabled people have access to apprenticeship opportunities and can fulfil their potential?

[Nick Boles]

It gives me great pleasure to be able to agree entirely with the hon. Lady. This is incredibly important. The current rate of participation in apprenticeships is not too bad—I think it is about 8.8%—but we can always do more. We need to ensure that the requirements for the qualifications, particularly in English and maths, that some people have to acquire as part of their apprenticeships do not discriminate against those who are disabled.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lisa Cameron Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Anna Soubry]

I very much agree that this is a big problem, and not just in rural areas. The lack of superfast connectivity concerns many businesses. It has been raised by the Federation of Small Businesses, and properly so. We have put aside £1 billion to assist the programme, but I absolutely agree that more can be done. My hon. Friend can be sure that this matter is at the top of Business Ministers’ priorities. We are working hard to ensure that every business quickly gets access to superfast broadband.

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

What additional funding and support will be made available to encourage persons with disabilities to start small business enterprises? Will the Minister meet the all-party parliamentary group for disability to discuss the matter?

[Anna Soubry]

The short answer is yes, absolutely. I very much look forward to doing so, because I have no doubt that there are better things and more things that we can do. I am very happy to have those discussions.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lisa Cameron Excerpts

Monday 30th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Nicky Morgan]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I know that, in the past, he has been an influential member of the f40 group of local authorities. We will have a full consultation. We absolutely realise that we will not solve the problem by making schools’ lives more difficult. Last week, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor confirmed that core schools funding is protected in real terms per pupil until the end of this Parliament.

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

4. What the effect of the spending review was on the amount her Department plans to spend on policies and services which in Scotland are devolved to the Scottish Government.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Nicky Morgan)]

First, I wish the hon. Lady and all Members a happy St Andrew’s day. As she will know, education is fully devolved in Scotland, so the Scottish Government will benefit from the Barnett consequentials of the cash terms increase to my Department’s budget that was announced last week. That includes real-terms protection for core schools funding, investing a record extra £1 billion a year by 2020 in free childcare and protecting core 16-to-19 funding, so that all young people gain the skills they need.

[Dr Cameron]

I wish all hon. Members a happy St Andrew’s day. Gaelic medium education is available to children in 14 out of 32 Scottish local authorities. The benefits of that bilingual education are well documented. Does the Minister agree that cutting BBC Alba’s funding as detailed in the spending review could impact on children learning in Gaelic? Will the Secretary of State join me in calling for that decision to be reversed?

[Nicky Morgan]

I am very happy to look further into the decision, which has not been raised with me before. I think we all agree—those of us who, presumably, are in this Chamber today because we care about education and the standards in our schools—that the most important thing in children learning is the quality of the teaching. As I have said, education is a devolved matter, and the Scottish Government will make decisions about how they are spending on languages.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Timpson]

I am pleased to hear about the work that my hon. Friend is championing in his constituency. The reforms we have brought in represent the biggest change to and the biggest opportunity for special educational needs and disability support in a generation. Good progress is being made. This is a three-year transition, but to date all councils have published their local offer, setting out the support for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities in their area. Integrated education, health and care plans are also available for the more complex needs that have to be addressed. As I mentioned a few moments ago, we are now working, with Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission, towards the introduction of the first ever SEND inspection framework to ensure parents and young people know whether they are able to access the range and quality of services that they need.

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

T6. Following the Paris attacks, there is a real concern that intolerance towards ethnic minority pupils could intensify. How will the Secretary of State ensure that ethnic minority pupils continue to participate fully at school, and what plans does she have to prevent religious intolerance?

[Nicky Morgan]

The hon. Lady asks a very important question. Sadly, it is ever more becoming something that we are all having to think about. Religious intolerance in schools is unacceptable. All schools are required to promote the fundamental British values of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, and mutual respect and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs. Schools should be places where we promote community cohesion—for example, through the national curriculum programme for citizenship, and the National Citizen Service—and, of course, such curriculum subjects teach about the importance of respecting others. I am pleased that many schools already do that in very diverse areas, but we will continue to focus on this important matter.

Trade Union Bill

Lisa Cameron Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Prentis]

I am going to finish, if I may.

This seems to be an entirely reasonable and, more importantly, proportionate measure. There is a clear public interest in ensuring that trade unions take responsibility for the conduct of the pickets that they organise. It is only fair that the rights of those who belong to unions are balanced with the rights of hard-working taxpayers, including those in my constituency, who rely on key public services.

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

I must declare an interest as a member of Unite the union and a proud union representative for 14 years.

Our proposals in new clauses 1, 3 and 4 and amendments 27, 28, 37, 25, 26, 24, 23, 11, 12, 13, 36 and 35 cover a variety of areas in the Bill that pose particular difficulties for public sector workers, focusing on agency workers and political funds. New clause 1 attempts to retain within primary legislation the ban on the supply of agency workers during strikes. Legislation banning the use of agency workers to break strikes has been in place in the UK since 1973. That position is in line with the majority of other European countries, which also prohibit or severely restrict the use of agency workers during industrial disputes. Removing that ban would be regressive and it would have significant implications for all workers.

Public opinion polls also indicate that such changes are not supported by the majority of the general public. The SNP therefore supports new clause 1, which aims to retain in primary legislation the ban on the supply of agency workers during strikes. Although the Bill does not specifically include provisions for that measure to be repealed, the Government have been consulting on draft legislation that would allow that to happen. Adopting our proposal would therefore be a failsafe against that occurring in future.

[Chris Stephens]

Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the difficulty is that the current penalty for an employer who hires agency workers to break strikes is very weak indeed? We need primary legislation to stop that practice.

[Dr Cameron]

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is also extremely important with regard to safety, including that of the public, which I will come on to discuss.

Repealing the existing prohibition on hiring agency staff to replace workers participating in industrial action fundamentally undermines the right to strike. It reduces the impact of strike action and upsets the power balance between workers and employers. It has also been argued that it is relatively ineffective with regard to dispute resolution, as it serves only to prolong the dispute, delay resolution and embitter industrial relations.

At a time when we are trying to encourage the living wage, the measure is also likely to drag down pay and working conditions for workers right across the country. It could have adverse implications for the agency workers themselves, as it would place them in a stressful environment.

Introducing inexperienced workers to take on the role of the permanent workforce in a workplace with which they are not familiar also has significant implications for health and safety and for the quality of services. That will impact both on those workers and on the public at large, who may utilise those services.

Those matters appear to be of particular concern to the public. A recent YouGov poll found that 65% of those surveyed were against bringing in temporary agency workers to break public sector strikes, and more than half said they thought it would worsen services and have a negative impact on safety. Only 8% indicated that they believe that hiring agency workers during strikes would improve services.

Unlike the UK Government, the SNP believes in a modern and progressive approach to industrial relations and to trade unionism, which is at the very heart of being able to achieve fair work. We recognise that no one wants strikes, but the way to avoid them is not to promote confrontation by legislating them out of existence. The right way is to pursue a relationship, in partnership with both workers and employers, based on respect and co-operation.

[Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)]

Would it not be better for this Government to value the work of our public sector workers in particular, rather than to undermine the role they play by bringing in agency workers to break strikes?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Cameron]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Workers who feel valued are much more likely to increase productivity and boost the economy.

New clause 3 would provide that, before the Government could introduce a Bill that would affect trade union political funds, they must first publish a statement specifying whether the Bill was being introduced with or without the agreement of all political parties represented in the House of Commons. The aim is to encourage the Government to seek political consensus with other political parties before introducing legislation that interferes with the ability of unions to engage politically.

Unions that wish to contribute to political parties or to engage in certain political activities, as defined by section 72 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, must establish a political fund. Before doing that, unions are legally required to ballot their members on whether they agree to the union maintaining a political fund through a political fund resolution.

Clause 10 will restrict unions’ right to freedom of association and their ability to engage in political debates. The provisions will place huge administrative burdens on unions, and may reduce the level of contributions raised, as has been the case in Northern Ireland. Currently, union members have the right to opt out of their subscriptions being used for political fund purposes, and they are not required to renew their opt-in. The proposals in clause 10 exceed the duties that apply to companies when making political donations. It is widely known that opt-in processes reduce participation. Amendment 27 seeks to remove clause 10 from the Bill completely, as it will undermine unions’ freedom of association.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Blenkinsop]

They amalgamated with the Confederation of Health Service Employees, as my hon. Friend says. The legislation does not recognise internal agreements that have been reached over decades.

[Dr Cameron]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. I would add that we heard testimony from witnesses in the Public Bill Committee on the very good work that unions contribute in terms of political donations to campaigns.

Amendments 11 to 13 to clause 13 attempt to limit the ability of Ministers to use their powers under the Bill where such powers are in breach of treaty obligations by stating that the powers cannot be used unless they are “compatible with treaty obligations” arising from the Council of Europe and the ILO. The cap on facility time will reduce the capacity of trade unions to represent their members and resolve disputes in the workplace before they escalate. According to the TUC, there is a risk that the proposal for a cap could conflict with EU law protecting the rights of health and safety reps to have paid time off for their duties and training; the rights of union representatives to have paid time off and office facilities during consultations on collective redundancies and outsourcing; TUPE rights; and even rights under general information and consultation arrangements covered by the information and consultation of employees regulations.

Amendments 35 and 36 also attempt to limit the ability of Ministers to use their powers under the Bill where such powers are in breach of treaty obligations by stating that the powers cannot be used unless they are “compatible with treaty obligations” arising from the Council of Europe and the ILO. Clause 14 will prevent all public sector employees from deducting union subscriptions via payroll. That will make it harder for individuals, including lower-paid workers, to access union representation in the workplace. The TUC is concerned that clause 14 will apply only to trade unions, not to staff associations. That suggests that the Government want to make it harder for people to join trade unions and to access the benefits of trade union membership, including effective representation in the workplace and specialist advice on employment rights, health and safety, and other work-related issues.

Under clause 14, the Government will be able to introduce regulations imposing a ban on check-off arrangements across the entire public sector. In particular, the plans to impose changes to collective agreements voluntarily made by employers and unions do not comply with ILO standards. Minister Roseanna Cunningham made it clear during the evidence sessions that the Scottish Government do not support the proposed ban on check-off arrangements. In recent weeks, more than 50 local authorities, NHS employers and employer organisations have criticised the Government’s plans to ban check-off arrangements in the public sector.

The Government claim that the proposal will save taxpayers up to £6 million. However, many unions already cover the cost of check-off services, as has been said. In some cases, fees charged by public sector employers for check-off provision generate a net gain. Another great concern that was raised in Committee was that legal challenges to the Government could cost the public purse.

Amendment 5, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), provides that the ban on check-off arrangements would not apply to public sector workplaces where the employer and the relevant unions had an agreement. We support that amendment.

In conclusion, this debate is about people, their lives, their pay, their conditions and their safety in their workplace. It deserves to be paid the utmost respect by Members in all parts of the Chamber.

Trade Union Bill (Ninth sitting)

Lisa Cameron Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve again under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. In the context of clauses 12 and 13, I have been remiss in not declaring a non-financial interest in as much as I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association, which is the umbrella body for local authorities in England and Wales.

Clause 13 includes a Henry VIII power whereby Ministers will be able to use secondary legislation to push through restrictions on or to repeal the right to paid time off for trade union duties in the public sector contained in primary legislation, and Parliament will have very limited opportunity to debate or amend such regulations. It is worrying that Ministers are taking such powers unto themselves and, in essence, sidelining Parliament from effective overview and scrutiny of their actions.

The clause demonstrates the Government’s total lack of understanding of the practice of good industrial relations. First, the clause is, in effect, a blank cheque for the Government: if passed, it would give Ministers the power to limit facilities for trade union officials. It contains no explanation of how or why that power would be exercised, and it certainly provides no logic or justification.

Secondly, the provision applies only to the public sector, just like the provision to record time off for facility time, and we need to ask ourselves why that is. First and foremost, like bad employers, this Government feel it is appropriate to threaten and intimidate their own workforce. Of course, the other people who will be affected by the measure are not directly the Government’s workforce but people who work for other public bodies such as local authorities, local government and the emergency services—public servants. The main reason why the provision does not apply to the private sector is because private sector employers do not really want it.

Good employers know and understand the value of working together with their workers and with trade unions. Good employers know and understand that their greatest assets are the good people who work for them. Good employers invest in their workers—they pay them well, train them and reward them; they do all they can to encourage loyalty and dedication. They try to retain their workforce because it costs a lot of money to train staff in a range of different skills and professions. That is why the best employers work in partnership with their workers, and it is why they encourage independent trade unions.

Trade union officials are an integral part of the best companies, working tirelessly to improve relations, productivity and profits. Trade unions know and understand that workers prosper only in growing, profitable firms.

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the review of facilities and facility time conducted by the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform in 2007? The report concluded that the work of union representatives actually reduces the number of cases proceeding to an employment tribunal and the number of working days lost due to workplace injury and workplace-related illness, and that such reductions result in significant financial savings.

Trade Union Bill (Tenth sitting)

Lisa Cameron Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

It is a pleasure to appear again under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. The new clause pertains to agency workers. We have heard quite extensively from many public sector bodies about their concerns in this regard. They have very clear concerns relating, for example, to patient safety, which has been highlighted again and again.

Repealing the existing prohibition on hiring agency staff to replace workers participating in industrial action fundamentally undermines the right to strike. It reduces the impact of strike action and upsets the power balance between workers and employers. Deploying a replacement workforce during a strike serves only to prolong the dispute, delay resolution and embitter industrial relations.

A change of this nature has implications for all workers. If rogue employers can draft in low-paid temporary workers to break strikes, that is likely to drag down pay and working conditions for workers right across the economy, as fewer people will be willing to stand up for themselves when facing injustice at work because they will know that they can simply be replaced. The change could also have an adverse implication for the agency workers themselves. It places them in an extremely difficult situation. They may risk not getting further work if they refuse such placements and they would have no statutory protection. Furthermore, introducing inexperienced workers to take on the role of the permanent workforce in a workplace that they are not familiar with has implications for health and safety and the quality of the services, as we have heard. That would impact both on the workers and on the public, who may want or require to use the services.

A recent YouGov poll found that of those surveyed, 65% were against bringing in temporary agency workers to break public sector strikes, with more than half saying that they thought that that would worsen services and have a negative impact on safety. Only 8% of the public who were surveyed believed that hiring agency workers during strikes would improve services.

[Chris Stephens]

In the evidence sessions, we heard from passenger transport groups, which made it plain that if train or bus drivers, for example, were replaced during a strike by people who were not trained, that would have real effects on public safety. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Dr Cameron]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. We have heard it time and again not just from the workers to whom he refers, but from healthcare and other workers.

The drawbacks of allowing agency staff to be used in this way are recognised by other European countries. By repealing the current legislation, the UK Government would become an outlier in this regard, as the majority of other European countries prohibit or severely restrict the use of agency workers during industrial disputes. In effect, this would be taking us back in time to the 1970s—a time when workers were pitted against one another. Often, that led to greater discord and disharmony for all, but particularly for the ordinary working person, who had difficulty sustaining their livelihood.

Again, this is partisan legislation and it is just not right. Our new clause is designed to ensure that agency workers would not be brought in. It states that a business

“shall not introduce or supply a work-seeker to a hirer to perform…the duties normally performed by a worker who is taking part in a strike or other industrial action…or…the duties normally performed by any other worker employed by the hirer and who is assigned by the hirer to perform the duties normally performed by the first worker”.

The new clause is designed to give the everyday worker in public services the same rights as others. It would give them the ability to engage in right and proper action as a last resort when they have to but not have their causes undermined. As we have heard, the public do not want that and it would also potentially undermine safety. I therefore look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Stephen Doughty]

The new clause enjoys the support of the Labour party, and I would be happy to add my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Wallasey and for Edinburgh South to it formally. As described by the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow, the new clause would insert into the Bill a ban on the supply of agency workers during industrial action.

The Government are planning to remove the ban through regulations. It seems they have been undertaking a consultation. Regulation 7 of the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003 prohibits agencies from knowingly supplying agency workers to replace striking workers. The change that we understand the Government are planning to bring forward will enable employers to bring in agency workers with a view to breaking strikes, regardless of the consequences for health and safety, which the hon. Lady has gone through in some detail.

We have heard from many witnesses throughout this Committee, both in the oral evidence sessions and more recently via written evidence. It is also important to look at the evidence that many organisations submitted to the Government’s consultation, much of which has been made available publicly. I will touch on a few parts of that evidence that I think are very pertinent.

In the oral evidence, the Government called a witness from an organisation called 2020 Health to support their Bill, but the witness seemed unable to confirm or was unaware that trade unions are required to provide life and limb cover. The Royal College of Midwives gave evidence. When it took strike action in October 2013, the RCM and its local representatives worked with hospitals to ensure that services were still available to women in need of essential care, such as those in labour. In light of that, many will rightly ask whether the provisions on agency workers are necessary.

Recruiters are wary of using temps and agency workers as strike-breakers. Kate Shoesmith, who is head of policy at the Recruitment and Employment Confederation, which has more than 3,500 corporate members, said:

“We are not convinced that putting agencies and temporary workers into the middle of difficult industrial relations situations is a good idea for agencies, workers or their clients.”

The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, which we have commented on many times, represents more than 140,000 members working across the public and private sectors. It warned that the Government’s plans to reform trade union laws are “an outdated response” given the challenges faced today.

Frances O’Grady, the TUC general secretary, spoke of the practical problems with the proposal. She said:

“We have very good relations and agreements with agencies and the federation representing agencies in this country. We have always worked very closely on the fair principles of employers needing flexibility to cover peaks and troughs in production, or staff absences, and doing that on the basis of equal treatment within the framework of the union agreement. This proposal is obviously quite different. We are potentially talking about employers having the right to replace wholesale workers who have democratically voted to go on strike with, potentially, untrained and inexperienced agency workers.”––[Official Report, Trade Union Public Bill Committee, 15 October 2015; c. 148, Q383.]

I also want to refer to the TUC’s response to the Department’s consultation, which said:

“Ciett, the International Confederation of Private Employment Agencies, has issued a Code of Conduct which prohibits the supply of agency workers during strikes…The Memorandum of Understanding between Ciett Corporate Members and Uni Global Union on Temporary Agency Work, which was signed by several UK agencies in 2008, prohibits ‘the replacement of striking workers by temporary agency workers without prejudice to national legislation or practices.’”

The TUC makes clear in its evidence that

“the ban on the supply of agency workers to replace strikers has been in place for more than 30 years and is an established part of UK industrial relations practice.”

We heard some striking examples from the hon. Lady, and I want to emphasise my similar concerns, particularly over transport and railways and so on. The TUC points to how:

“Agency cleaners recruited to work in food factories may not have received the requisite safety training relating to handling chemicals or cleaning products.”

That places the safety of customers, let alone that of the agency workers, at risk. There were also concerns about the potential for tensions to be created around migrant workers and all the issues surrounding that, which we have already discussed at different points.

Most people have a great deal of concern about many of the circumstances we have discussed where agency workers could be brought in. The evidence is pretty damning and the Government should be embarrassed that they are trying to force the measures through, despite the chorus of opposition to them.

As I have argued throughout our consideration of the Bill, any one of the clauses on its own is bad enough, but the cumulative impact is worse still. The Government’s apparent proposals on agency workers, alongside clause 7, imply that the extended notice period is being introduced to give employers additional time to organise agency workers to undermine industrial action, as well as to prepare for the legal challenges that I think will inevitably result from the Bill. We are firmly opposed to the removal of the ban on the supply of agency workers during strikes, which will make it easier for employers to break strikes or undermine their effectiveness.

The Opposition believe that the measures would be bad for safety and for service users. Because they could serve to prolong or worsen industrial action, they would be bad for the general public too. It is certainly not a model for modern industrial relations. If our colleagues choose to press the amendment to a vote, they will enjoy our full and hearty support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Boles]

I certainly recognise that the Opposition feel strongly about that position, and I have absolutely no doubt that they will return with these or similar clauses, and certainly with similar arguments, should the Government decide to pursue a change in the regulations banning the use of agency workers. However, I do not want to pre-empt the Government’s position, because we have not yet decided how we will respond to the consultation. On that basis, I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

[Dr Cameron]

Although I find the Minister extremely eloquent with an appearance of moderation, as I have done throughout, I must say that the SNP find it disingenuous. We wish to put safety, public opinion and the ordinary worker at the fore. I therefore urge the Committee to support the new clause.

Term-time Leave

Lisa Cameron Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2015 Westminster Hall

[Steve Double]

Of course, weekends can play a part, but I again make the point that for many parents, the weekends these days are full of a great deal of activity. That week away, where a family can get away from the pressures of life and concentrate on their time together, is valuable.

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

On that point, in the broader sense we need to understand that many parents, such as those who work in our health service, work shifts and may have to be present during summer time. Not everyone can have their holiday at the same time, because we need to keep our health service running.

[Steve Double]

I absolutely agree. Gone are the days when our society was neatly packaged into the week and the weekend. The lines are very much blurred these days.

To reiterate the point, that week or two away from it all as a family cannot be replaced by the odd day here and there that parents may be able to get. If the choice for a family is a holiday during term time or no holiday at all, parents should have every right to decide that a family holiday would be more beneficial for their child than being in school for that week. I know from my many years as a school governor that the single most important factor in any child’s life is a positive and stable relationship with their parents, along with the degree to which their parents are involved in their life and upbringing.

The policy is not only preventing families from taking a holiday together. I have been contacted by dozens of families offering accounts of how their children have missed out on family events as the school would not authorise them to miss a day or two. One family told me how their child missed out on seeing their cousin compete in a sporting world championship as their school said the cousin was not a close enough family member for the child to be allowed to go. A four-year-old was refused permission to attend his grandmother’s 60th birthday celebrations as it would have meant taking the Friday off school to travel. I would welcome clarification from the Minister. My understanding of the 1996 Act is that there is no requirement to put children in school until after their fifth birthday. If a child is in school before their fifth birthday, do the strict rules apply to them?