National Minimum Wage (Workplace Internships) Bill
Debate between Alec Shelbrooke and John Bercow
Alec Shelbrooke
I am sure my hon. Friend speaks from experience.
The disparity between words and action is starkly highlighted by the Institute of Directors, which describes itself as an organisation that opposes long-term unpaid internships yet publishes a model contract for members to get round minimum wage legislation.
I come to some of the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby raised.
According to YouGov, 39% of young people—almost two in five—have turned down an offer of an unpaid internship for financial reasons, and only 4% believe they could definitely afford to do one. That is an important statistic, because all the examples I have heard about the opportunities people have been able to exploit, and some of the interventions that have been made on me, have almost tried to paint a picture suggesting that I am removing opportunity and bringing forward just circumstantial evidence. However, almost 40% of people offered an internship have had to turn it down because they cannot afford to live. That is not an insignificant statistic, and it is not insignificant in terms of the value of this argument.
Some 43% of young people aged between 18 and 24 believe that the need to do an unpaid internship acts as a barrier to their career choices. I genuinely fear that the opportunities available to young people today are decreasing; they are certainly much harder to acquire than they were for me. Like most young people at our local comprehensive school, my sister and I were taught that hard work and determination would help us make something of ourselves in the world of work. Our supportive parents made us work part-time jobs around our education—something that taught us the real value of money, something that we had to do to run our first cars, and something that taught us how to budget, which was a valuable lesson for later life. Unpaid work was simply not an option for me or my sister. Had an unpaid internship been a prerequisite for access to our chosen professions, it would have been a barrier to our getting into the workplace.
The Sutton Trust estimates that expenses-only internships in London cost a young person around £1,000 per month, but there are still people who believe that they are being generous by offering lunch expenses. With 81% of law internships and 61% of PR internships in London, what example does that send to firms carrying out internship programmes?
It is not just those who cannot afford to do an unpaid internship who miss out; it is also businesses and, ultimately, the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) made it clear that the legal profession recognises that point as well. Essentially, creating a system in which only 4% of people feel they would face no financial restrictions to entering unpaid employment could mean that a talent pool of 96% of the rest of the market remained untouched.
It is well recorded that private schools in this country give a marvellous and privileged education to those lucky enough to attend, but in every job I have worked in so far it has been apparent that those with state educations have been just as capable as, and in many cases more capable than, those whose parents were rich enough to send them to a fee-paying school. I do believe there is a role for private schools in the UK, and I believe in parental choice, but it is also the responsibility of the state—
Mr Speaker
Order. We are all extremely interested in the views of the hon. Gentleman on fee-paying education and other, related matters. Given that he has been addressing the House for 33 minutes with an eloquence worthy of Demosthenes, to which we have been listening with rapt attention, and in the light of the fact that the Bill contains three substantive clauses and another formal clause on the short title, commencement and scope, I wonder whether he is going to proceed relatively soon to a description of one or other of the three substantive clauses. I am very eager to hear what he has to say on those important matters.
Alec Shelbrooke
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for your advice. Indeed, I am merely painting the landscape in which the Bill is meant to encourage change. The Bill makes an important argument: we in the House today cannot ignore the fact that some people, who can come from the poorest backgrounds academically and who can work their way up to be on a level pegging, can then see their opportunities cut off because others are getting around an Act that was brought in specifically to protect them.
That is what the first clause of the Bill addresses. It describes what a workplace internship is:
“For the purpose of this Act, a workplace internship is an employment practice in which a person…undertakes regular work or provides regular services in the United Kingdom for…another person…a company…a limited liability partnership…or a public authority; and…the purpose of the employment practice is…that the intern meets learning objectives or gains experience of working for the employer listed in section 1(a); and…to provide practical experience in an occupation or profession.”
What I hope I have done so far this morning is highlight how some companies are getting round that and how the existing National Minimum Wage Act allows that.
I think we would agree that defining the “volunteer” unpaid internship at Vivienne Westwood as involving working regular hours from Monday to Friday would mean it fell within the scope of the Bill, which would protect somebody who
“undertakes regular work or provides regular services in the United Kingdom”.
I think that gets to what I hope to achieve in the Bill. I am simply trying to close down loopholes in legislation that has been very useful in protecting people in the United Kingdom.
Points of Order
Debate between Alec Shelbrooke and John Bercow
Mr Speaker
I am bound to say two things to the right hon. Gentleman. First, I am no great enthusiast for over-zealous surveillance. Secondly, within whosesoever competence the matter might fall, it is not a prerogative of the Chair, but I have a sense, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will not take exception to my saying this, that on this occasion his inquiry was substantially rhetorical, and he was more interested in what he had to say to me than in anything that I might have to say to him.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Could you advise me how I may be able to put it on record that the House has just been brilliantly served by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, answering all the questions that the House put?
Mr Speaker
Well! The hon. Gentleman is in some danger of rising in the House’s league table of colleagues who specialise in complimentary remarks, but there is a fine line between being complimentary and being Uriah Heepish or oleaginous. May I very gently suggest that the hon. Gentleman have a word with his right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) about the dangers of over-indulgence in that regard? We will leave it there for today.
I thank all colleagues for taking part. Very sincerely, may I thank the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan), for attending so courteously and with such good humour to the inquiries from colleagues across the House on that very important matter?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Alec Shelbrooke and John Bercow(8 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Despite his sudden shyness, the man in the cream suit has an identical question, and I want to give him his opportunity. Mr Alec Shelbrooke.
Alec Shelbrooke
17. Since 2010, my city of Leeds has seen hundreds of millions of pounds invested in its transport infrastructure. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend can confirm that the billions of pounds that were to be put into the northern powerhouse to invest in transport infrastructure across the whole of Yorkshire and the Humber will still be delivered.
Points of Order
Debate between Alec Shelbrooke and John Bercow
Mr Speaker
A very brief, and I hope accurate, mental calculation suggests to me that there have been 101 days since the date to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. It is perfectly possible that the Government are contemplating such a statement, and if they are not doing so, it is possible that they might do so as soon as the news of his point of order wings its way towards the relevant departmental Minister, or even to the Prime Minister himself. If that transpires not to be the case, the right hon. Gentleman is a very experienced Member and a former Deputy Leader of the House and he will be well aware that he could pursue the matter at business questions, for example, or through the use, on other days beyond today, of the device that can help to secure a ministerial presence. Knowing him as I do, I know that he will utilise all the weapons at his disposal.
Mr Speaker
The day would not be complete without hearing a point of order from the hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke).
Alec Shelbrooke
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your support and advice. You will know that last week we had an important urgent question about mental health, and you will recall that when I asked a question on that occasion, I commented on the fact that the writers of “Coronation Street” had done a great service to those with mental health issues by addressing the stigma and other relevant issues. It will not have escaped your notice that the creator and original writer of “Coronation Street”, Mr Tony Warren, has sadly passed away at the age of 79. Is there any way in which it could be noted, through you in the Chair, that the contribution to society as well as to entertainment of great pioneers such as Tony Warren has led to a great improvement in British culture and a greater understanding of our country?
Mr Speaker
My feeling is that the hon. Gentleman has found his own salvation. He has achieved his mission. Moreover, he knows that he has done so. No real contribution from me is required, other than to acknowledge that he has paid fulsome and gracious tribute to someone who proved to be a change-maker. I am sorry to learn of that gentleman’s passing, but he has been honoured by the hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell today.
Point of Order
Debate between Alec Shelbrooke and John Bercow
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Today it has been announced that, tragically, a couple from Leeds, Christopher and Sharon Bell, who were taking a holiday, were among the victims in the Tunisia massacre. I should like to place on record the condolences of the House.
I seek your advice, Mr Speaker. As the days pass, we know that further victims will be identified. Is there a way in which the whole House can offer condolences to the families at this tragic time?
Mr Speaker
The ingenuity of individual Members can sometimes enable that to happen, as the hon. Gentleman has just demonstrated with some piquancy. He will be aware that the Prime Minister periodically updates the House on losses of life that occur as a result either of tragedy or of evil. I think we will leave it there for today, but I note the concern the hon. Gentleman has expressed, which I am sure is shared in all parts of the House.
Owing to an administrative error, a notice of presentation of Bill did not appear in this morning’s Order Paper as first printed. That has since—I am pleased to say—been corrected.
Bill Presented
National Health Service Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Caroline Lucas, supported by Dr Philippa Whitford, Cat Smith, John Pugh, Hywel Williams, Jeremy Corbyn, Mr Michael Meacher, Dr Eilidh Whiteford, Rob Marris, Kelvin Hopkins, John McDonnell and Mr Roger Godsiff, presented a Bill to re-establish the Secretary of State’s legal duty as to the National Health Service in England and to make provision about the other duties of the Secretary of State in that regard; to make provision about the administration and accountability of the National Health Service in England; to repeal section 1 of the National Health Service (Private Finance) Act 1997 and sections 38 and 39 of the Immigration Act 2014; to make provision about the application of international law in relation to health services in the United Kingdom; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 March, and to be printed (Bill 37).
Point of Order
Debate between Alec Shelbrooke and John Bercow
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
Yesterday you kindly addressed the House before we debated Her Majesty’s Most Gracious Speech, and you made it clear that there is a responsibility within this House in how we conduct ourselves and how we should encourage members of the public to conduct themselves. You will have noticed yesterday that, whatever our political views, it is unreasonable for Members to be attacked for their views by members of the public whether they agree with them or not. There is nothing we in the House can do about that, but I seek further guidance from you, Mr Speaker, about what consequences and powers you have if individuals of this House are encouraged to be targeted by any other Member within the House, as was instanced once or twice in previous Parliaments.
Mr Speaker
That is an ingenious attempted point of order, but at this stage, with my not being privy to details that may be known to the hon. Gentleman, I am inclined to regard the question, though potentially important, as hypothetical. In the rather wise words of the late Lord Whitelaw, it is perhaps best to cross bridges only when one comes to them. We will leave it there for now, but if what is mulling in the hon. Gentleman’s brain becomes a concrete and specific point, I will treat of it when that moment arises.