Oral Answers to Questions

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Monday 29th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Luke Hall]

At levels 2 and 3, apprenticeships make up 65% of all starts so far this year and there are almost 140 apprenticeships at level 2. We published data last week to show that level 2 apprenticeships rose by 2.5% in terms of attainment. We will do everything we can to make sure people have access to high-quality apprenticeships, and we have also invested £50 million over two years to boost starts in growth sectors including engineering and manufacturing. I am always happy to meet my hon. Friend.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

T7. Five years on from the approval of a new secondary school in my Middlesbrough constituency, not a brick has been laid and the children of Outwood Academy Riverside remain in an old Home Office block, and the next two years’ intake are going to be bused to Redcar to portacabins plonked on a field. Children are spending their entire secondary school years in temporary accommodation and it is just not good enough. Will the Secretary of State tell ministerial colleagues to get a grip and crack on with building the new school these students need and deserve?

[Damian Hinds]

We have increased the amount of money going into condition funding. We are also, of course, rebuilding 500 schools under the school rebuilding programme. I will look into the specific case the hon. Gentleman mentions and come back to him.

Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Bill (Third sitting)

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd March 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Western]

My hon. Friend understandably has a different perspective on the sector and he has real expertise. With some of the initiatives—I am thinking of T-levels and how the Government sought to remove BTECs—there has been resistance, and a difference between what the Government and colleges and employers believe worked successfully. The introduction of any new approach brings massive challenges. As the Minister knows, the Opposition are in favour of lifelong learning, but it is important that the delivery of it is successful, and there is not a failure from the start. We are at this stage in the Parliament, and there is a lot of work to be done if the measures are to be successful.

One benefit of consultation is engagement. There has been a desire across the sector to have more engagement with the Government, but it has been made difficult. I welcome the Minister to his place; he is a decent individual with expertise and knowledge about the skills sector. There has been such upheaval and turmoil across the ministerial line-up that I think it has made it very difficult. We are five years on from the 2018 Augar report. There needs to be consistency and stability across the ministerial line-up to deliver some of these ideas.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend share my perception of the role of the local skills improvement plans in this area? From my own experience, it would appear that there is a degree of frustration in those who are seeking to drive the plans when gaining qualitative information from employers. I wonder whether that is indicative of well-intentioned plans not being thought through thoroughly, and not being coherent, intelligible and effective.

[Matt Western]

My hon. Friend has a lot of experience as a Member of Parliament for Middlesbrough, and understands how important it is, with economic change and new sectors emerging, that training and skills provision is available and co-ordinated. I worked with my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield on the Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022; the introduction of local skills improvement plans was seen as a good proposal, but it is about delivery and making it work. It is important to have the right people involved in those plans, who are acting not simply out of self-interest but in the interests of the long-term—10 or 15 years hence. I still believe there is much work to be done on that.

Our amendment would bring all the relevant stakeholders together, simultaneously limiting unintended consequences and engaging the relevant groups with the policy while boosting awareness of the lifelong loan entitlement policy. I think this is a very sensible suggestion, but I guess I would say that.

So, on behalf of the sector, I just ask the Minister to provide some assurances that decisions made under clause 1(4) will not be implemented without sector and representative consultation and approval, and that is what these two amendments seek to ensure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Western]

The amendments seek to incorporate two elements into the Bill. The first would ensure that the definition of a “credit” is aligned with sector-recognised standards, and the second would ensure that the definition of a “transfer case” includes reference to the need for a standardised transcript. This is particularly important for ensuring consistency and quality.

Let me start with amendment 4. The sector has clearly done a huge amount of work in this space, and we heard from Professor Sue Rigby of Bath Spa University, who was responsible for rewriting the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education’s credit framework alongside Ellen Thinnesen of Sunderland College, who was an advisory member for the development of the QAA’s quality code for higher education. Ellen made it very clear in her evidence that being precise on the face of the Bill about what a credit is would be a really important step. Interestingly, she said that it would provide clarity about the relationship between credits, fees and module content. As I said in my opening remarks, the concept of a credit—both as a term and as a currency—is alien to the wider public, which is an issue. The public’s understanding about what a T-level is and its value is not well appreciated, which, sadly, may devalue it in the eyes of employers or others. That is why we believe that the definition of credit should be on the face of the Bill.

The term is certainly understood by the sector, with one credit equating to 10 notional hours of learning. The minimum proposed 30-unit course available to a student benefiting from their LLE would therefore equate to 300 hours of notional learning.  Without a clear commitment to a sector-recognised definition of credit on the face of the Bill, what is to stop the Government amending the value of a credit without any proper scrutiny? I was pleased to see reference to credit in the explanatory notes, which define one credit as representing 10 hours of notional learning. Elsewhere, this understanding or valuation of a credit is found in Ofqual’s conditions of registration and the Office for Students’ sector-recognised standards, as well as in the QAA’s higher education credit framework. 

I think it is the sector’s definition to own. In not making it clear on the face of the Bill, the inevitable concern is that Ministers may well step in and start amending the value of a credit, which has implications for the fee cap that providers are able to charge. What assurances can the Minister give us that a credit is to be aligned with sector-recognised standards? 

Of course, the benefit of our amendment is that it would provide flexibility: should the sector decide to amend its definition of a credit, that would be updated in the Bill. Our amendment would simply enshrine the autonomy of providers against potential interference by the Government, and I think most of us would say that that is a very healthy place to be, irrespective of where we sit in the Chamber. The context is the creeping Government interference that we have seen within the Office for Students, so it is really important that the definition of a credit is transparent and owned by the sector.

On amendment 9, I thank the Minister for publishing the consultation ahead of Report, following cross-party representations on Second Reading from me, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson). The publication of that report has invariably improved the quality of debate. The amendment is inspired by the Government’s own commitment, in their response, to introduce the requirement for providers to give standardised transcripts to learners on completion of their modules. That is a good thing. During the evidence session, we heard several concerns about how transfer cases would work. Julie Charge, for example, raised concerns about how they would work in practice and who would be the awarding body. That is certainly not clear.

We also heard from Rachel Sandby-Thomas, who explained that in transfer cases the providers involved currently have a good relationship. It is really important for there to be trust and an appreciation of the values and standards of the institution that is transferring out as well as an appraisal of the relative standards. It will take time for providers to build up such relationships when, in theory, students will be able to transfer from any provider to another. That is why the issue is so important. A standardised academic transcript would give value and credit to the qualifications achieved by a learner.

[Andy McDonald]

Could I take my hon. Friend back a step to the level of requirement on providers to settle a standardised script? One of my local colleges has got in touch to say that although it welcomes the idea, it understands that there are no plans to make it a firm requirement of higher education providers. Instead, they will be encouraged only to consider standardised transcripts. Does that accord with my hon. Friend’s understanding or is there something stronger in the Bill that we have not seen?

[Matt Western]

It is interesting to hear the voice of one of my hon. Friend’s local colleges in Middlesborough. The need for standardisation is at the heart of the issue; as I say, where this is working currently there is an existing relationship between education providers—whether colleges or higher education institutions—when it comes to the person who may be transferring out or in and what they will have attained by arriving at the other institution. That is really important.

We have to establish a currency or there will not be trust between the institutions when it comes to taking people on—they might not appreciate the value or standard that the learner may have previously achieved. It will take time for providers to build up these relationships and that is why standardised academic transcripts are important.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald]

My hon. Friend is making an important point about the lifetime nature of study. There is some confusion: I do not know whether he can assist me on this, but apparently the loans will be made available up to the age of 60. That is revealed in the consultation. On the same page, however, it also states that a reduced rate maintenance loan will continue to be available for those over 60. Does that mean that over-60s can continue to receive the funding, or is it only for those who started before the age of 60? I am somewhat confused. Can my hon. Friend clarify? Perhaps the Minister will when he sums up.

[Matt Western]

My hon. Friend makes an important and pressing point, which is perhaps more pressing to certain of us than others—

[Andy McDonald]

Well, I might have a future career ahead of me!

[Matt Western]

In all seriousness, the issue was discussed at the evidence sessions on Tuesday and there seems to be an anomaly. I am sure that the Minister will want to address that.

Listening to the witnesses the other day, I think there was some concession. If we have rising pension thresholds and we want to re-involve a sector of our population that has withdrawn from employment and the economy —we heard in the last few days about the Government’s intention regarding returnerships—people need to be able to access this provision; I am also thinking of the WASPI women. People suddenly find that they do not have the incomes they need to sustain themselves. The sorts of work they previously were involved in might no longer be open to them, and they might need to retrain. Age 60 is an arbitrary guillotine, and it is not necessarily appropriate. I very much hope that the Minister will clarify the issue for my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and the rest of us. Perhaps he might reflect on the economic needs, as well as the social needs, that such a change would meet.

It is important that Ministers should be confident that there will be no disproportionate effect on certain groups of students, some of whom we have mentioned, including those from disadvantaged backgrounds. I am thinking in particular of those mentioned in the evidence sessions—those with particular responsibilities, financial challenges, social and domestic challenges, caring responsibilities and so on. In the evidence sessions, I was pleased to hear from Professor Sue Rigby from Bath Spa University, who endorses the plan to ensure a risk analysis of the unintended consequences for students.

Finally, I believe there is a need to have regard for the impact on student numbers. I was intrigued to hear the suggestion from Sir Philip Augar, whom I respect greatly. He suggested that, with a declining population rate, “forward-thinking institutions” may see this route as a viable one to attract more students. A pessimist might say that, given a declining post-18 population rate post 2030, some institutions may see this route as a way to boost their declining student numbers. Although it might seem like a problem for the future, that future does not seem that far away—particularly in terms of electoral cycles. It might not be a problem that we envisage in the immediate short term, but modular study surely should not be seen simply as an avenue through which providers can boost student numbers, being purely driven by their own financial interests.

Sir David Bell of the University of Sunderland raised the prospect of the learner being overwhelmed by choice and he has a very real point. The choice on offer should always be a choice in the learner’s interest, and the Secretary of State would be wise to have due regard for how student numbers might be impacted in setting the maximum number of credits.

Amendment 11 seeks to avoid the unintended consequences of the 120 limit, which is a particular issue for accelerated learning courses, which give an offer to a particular population for whom getting through a qualification in a shorter period of time is really vital, or perhaps vital for the organisation that employs them. That is why we think amendment 11 should be accepted.

Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Bill (Fourth sitting)

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd March 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Perkins]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Cummins. I rise to speak to my hon. Friend’s amendments. I think that he has already made the case well, but there are a few points that I would like to add, particularly regarding the financial sustainability of further education colleges and independent learning providers.

The amendments absolutely speak to the heart of our reservations about the approach being taken. They are quite modest in their scope, but given the evidence that we heard in the evidence sessions, which was touched on in earlier discussions on other amendments, they do, as I say, cut to the heart of our concerns. Amendment 7 asks the Secretary of State to have regard for additional costs associated with the delivery of the course, and amendment 8 asks the Secretary of State to have regard to the financial sustainability of providers.

I will speak to amendment 7 first. In the evidence session, David Hughes explained that colleges,

“do not have any of what the private sector might call risk capital”.––[Official Report, Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Public Bill Committee, 21 March 2023; c. 50, Q105.]

Given that FE college funding has fallen by 27% in real terms between 2010 and 2019, according to the House of Commons Library, and given the increasing financial pressures—with the booming energy prices and wage inflation all affecting colleges too—the financial picture for many of our colleges, crucial as they are, is very difficult indeed.

For that reason, David Hughes told us that the risk appetite of colleges for putting on courses that they do not know that anyone will study is likely to be pretty limited and restrained. As my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington said, with colleges now being inside the public sector and therefore unable to seek private-sector borrowing, and being forced to run balanced budgets, colleges will just not be able to run courses that they cannot be pretty certain will have learners taking them.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent point about the difficult landscape that FE colleges find themselves in, but is he as surprised as I was to hear that Eton College was proposing to enter into the fray across the country—my own constituency included, notwithstanding that there was an oversupply in the sector already—thereby adding to the difficulties and undermining existing colleges? Is that not exactly the wrong way to go when the landscape is already so difficult?

[Mr Perkins]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I am not specifically aware of the intended provision that he raised but, absolutely, the strength of his oratory on the issues facing further education colleges is absolutely right, and I would be very interested to learn more about what it is that Eton College believes it can offer that is not currently being provided.

Returning to the point I was making, there is a real need for somebody to step in and provide the certainty of funding that might allow more courses to be put on. Realistically, this legislation will not even come into force until 2025, so it will fall on the next Government to make this work, not the current Government, with all their best intentions. It will fall on the next Government to ensure that our constituents and learners across the country can actually take advantage of what is being offered.

Over the course of the 13 years I have been a Member of Parliament, I have become used to quizzing Ministers on pieces of legislation: “How is it going to work? What are you going to do?” This is one of those situations where the Minister is laying out what he anticipates might happen with the legislation, but all these questions will probably be for his successor. He may still be the Minister—no one knows the outcome of a future election.

However, as His Majesty’s Opposition, as a responsible Opposition, we have to think carefully about the fact that we might inherit this legislation and inherit responsibility for ensuring that these courses are available, that colleges and independent learning providers are sustainable, and that this provision is available to our constituents. It is therefore important for the Minister to confirm at this stage, given the recent Budget, whether any provision has put in place to recognise the additional costs for FE colleges or independent learning providers in delivering a more modular form of learning.

As we heard in evidence—I will expand on that in a moment—additional administrative and cost burdens will be placed on colleges. Will money be put aside to ensure that they are able to run these courses sustainably? If it is not the Department for Education or the Minister that will be ensuring additional funds, will it fall on local mayors to provide financial reassurance? Might the need for this kind of provision appear in local skills improvement plan? There would then be an expectation that a Metro Mayor would provide additional financial reassurance.

If not, I fear that this scheme will end up being something that largely happens in the private sector, where there is maybe a bit more risk appetite, and only with employers who can provide certainty about the economies of scale by placing several learners on courses. If a particular employer says, “Well, I want seven of my staff to do a specific course,” then someone might run one on that basis. But we are looking for colleges or independent providers to pre-emptively offer a course and see who signs up for it, so all these financial implications will only add to the potential nervousness around that. We heard several witnesses say that this measure has the potential to be a game changer for colleges, but only if they can afford to take the risk. This amendment, proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington, offers some potential for the Government to illustrate that that risk has been seriously considered.

It will be useful for the Committee if I specify some of the additional costs that learning providers will face. We know that one of the Bill’s objectives is that someone who studies in this kind of modular way should not pay any more than they would have done had they studied in what you might call the usual way on a short-term, full-time course. Providers are saying that delivering in this new way will be more expensive, so there is a gap. Someone has to fill that gap, and it will either be some form of Government or the provider themselves. If it is going to be the providers, they will have to think carefully about whether that will be affordable.

If we think, for example, about the recruitment costs for any college that takes on lecturers—advertising a position, going through the interviews, all the administrative costs with collating CVs and going through and meeting to discuss those CVs—and all those things that might normally happen in advance of a three-year university degree, with all the revenues that will come in from that, all those costs still apply. However, it might be that those costs apply to someone who will actually be working for a short length of time and with far less revenue coming into the learning provider, and the barriers to recruitment will arguably grow.

--- Later in debate ---

Division 7

Ayes: 5

---

Labour: 5

Noes: 8

---

Conservative: 8

[Andy McDonald]

I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 1, page 5, line 23, at end insert—

“(1IA) The fee limit as determined under paragraphs 1D, 1E and 1I is to be indexed to any future increase in tuition fees”.

This amendment is to ensure that should the Secretary of State or Parliament decide on any increase in the value of tuition fees, the fee limit is adjusted accordingly to ‘future-proof’ the value of the lifelong learning entitlement.

It is a delight to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mrs Cummins. I thank the Minister for his commitment to lifelong learning and for his acknowledgement of the position regarding FE lecturers and teachers. All of us who value our superb FE sector are aware of the pressures it is under, but I ask him to take up with me outside this discussion the unintended consequences of bringing other providers into a field where they can detract and take people away.

I welcome the commitment to lifelong learning but, as my amendment speaks to the issue of fees and therefore indebtedness, I also feel obliged to place on the record my thanks to Governments past for making the commitment to provide me and my generation with an entirely free education. Given that I started as an undergraduate in the 1970s, I recognise the wisdom of Harold Wilson in establishing the Open University. His good sense, and that of Jim Callaghan, ensured that working-class youngsters could fulfil their potential without the burden of long-term debt.

It is a different world now, and I very much regret the commodification and commercialisation of education in this neoliberal world. I hope that future Governments will abolish tuition fees for those embarking on their higher education journey. I am of the view that some of the changes we have seen since the 1970s have not been to the betterment of those wishing to further their training and education, or to the betterment of our economy and society. But we are where we are, and the Government’s intended commitment to lifelong learning warrants support—albeit, as ever, subject to the rigours of examination in the Bill Committee process.

--- Later in debate ---

The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington asked for clarification on HE funding. We believe that a continued fee freeze achieves the best balance between ensuring that the system remains financially sustainable, offering good value for the taxpayer and reducing debt levels for students in real terms. To be clear, we are investing an extra £750 million over three years, from 2022 to 2024-25, to support high-quality teaching and facilities for subjects that support the NHS and degree apprenticeships.

[Andy McDonald]

I thank the Minister for his response. On the ancillary issue of universal credit, I have an uncanny feeling that the protections are not as universal as the Opposition hope. Nevertheless, we have been given some reassurances. On the substantive matter of my amendment, I am pleased that the system works, that the Minister has been persuaded of the veracity of our arguments and that it is already built into his thinking. With that, I will not press the amendment to a Division, and I thank the Minister for his clarifications.

[Robert Halfon]

I forgot to mention this but I think the hon. Gentleman asked to see me. I would, of course, be happy to meet him at any time.

Amendment negatived.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Bill (First sitting)

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st March 2023 Public Bill Committees

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

I am an honorary fellow of Birkbeck, University of London.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

I am an honorary governor of Middlesbrough College.

[The Chair]

We will now hear oral evidence from Professor Malcolm Press CBE, chair of University UK’s advisory group on the lifelong loan entitlement and vice-chancellor of Manchester Metropolitan University. Professor Press is appearing by Zoom. I remind Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill, and we must stick to the timings in the programme order that the Committee has agreed. We have until 9.50 am for this panel. Professor Press, could you please introduce yourself for the record?

Professor Press: My name is Professor Malcolm Press, and I am here in my capacity as chair of Universities UK’s group working on the lifelong loan entitlement. I am also vice-chancellor of Manchester Metropolitan University.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We just have time for one more very quick question.

[Andy McDonald]

Q On the staff stressor costs and employer engagement, is also there an additional administrative burden? Is there enough in this Bill to enable providers to cope with those additional costs?

Liz Bromley: I think there will be a significant administrative burden. There is every time you change. For me, the big one will be the change of the academic year to a course year. Every time you change something that changes the way we collect and report our data, the way we admit our students, the way we provide the support that they need on their journey to education, you increase the administrative burden. It sounds like a constant whinge, but in practicality I have worked in both universities and colleges, and it is always the infrastructure that supports the delivery of the core product of education that costs the money and takes the time. So yes, there will be an additional administrative burden that will be expensive, but we will get there.

[Andy McDonald]

Q Will it work without money, Alun?

Alun Francis: I think it depends on how big the administrative burden grows, because the bigger it gets, the more that might be a challenge. For me, it is difficult to say what that will look like now. There will be a change. I can also see some positives, though, in some of the changes around the course year. Some staff will prefer not to have an academic year—our apprenticeship teams already do not have an academic year. There will be pluses and minuses on that side. For me, the model—

[The Chair]

Order. I am afraid that that brings us to the end of the time allocated for the Committee to ask questions. Before we move on to the next panel, may I thank our witnesses on behalf of the Committee for your evidence. Thank you ever so much.

Examination of Witnesses

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald]

Q Very briefly, on the issue of cost, we have talked about the cost that may be visited on the student and the administrative cost on the institutions. I wonder whether either of you have given any thought to how the unspent apprenticeship levy fund might be utilised to mitigate some of those costs, either individually or collectively. Rachel, would you like to start?

Rachel Sandby-Thomas: It would be another source of funding if the levy were expanded outside apprenticeships, because currently it is only for apprenticeships. If that were to be amended to have wider training involved, that would be another source of funding. I do not really think it helps the university very much, because obviously the purpose of this legislation is to prescribe how much it can charge, but it could help the prospective student if the employer used the levy to contribute in order to reduce the size of the loan that the prospective student takes out.

[Andy McDonald]

Sir David, any thoughts?

Sir David Bell: That is a policy choice about the allocation of apprenticeship levy funding, but I would have thought that one of the tasks for policy makers is to try to ensure that we have a coherent system of funding that supports all the different routes, including apprenticeships, those who would want to study under the LLE and so on. That is important, but I do not really think it is for us to comment on the allocation of apprenticeship levy funding.

[Andy McDonald]

Q You appear to be somewhat sanguine about heaping yet further choice and complexity into an already complex system. Is that a genuine reflection of your concerns?

Sir David Bell: I do think it gets a bit more complicated, and we are in the process of trying to work out how we can address those complexities. I would go back to the point that Rachel made. I have not had the chance to say it, but I too want to say that this is a really positive development if it is giving people more opportunities to undertake additional education at different stages of life. That is a very good thing. We want to make it work, and if it is a bit more complicated than perhaps the system has been up until now, there is an onus on all of us to ensure that we provide the right kind of guidance and support. There are all kinds of players in that regard. Reference was made to the work in Sunderland through DWP, which is a really good source of advice. There is the university or college itself, and independent advice and careers guidance. All of that has to connect, so that people get the right advice in what I think will be a slightly more complicated system under this reform.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Q I am interested in the additional costs for institutions. Rachel, you touched on that. Do you think there need to be some additional payments to institutions to incentivise them to do this? Who should look after students between modules? Who should offer that ongoing support? Should it be the institution, or should there be another body?

Rachel Sandby-Thomas: That is a really good question. Let me do the first part first, because that is a slightly easier question. I do not want to appear as if I am putting out a begging bowl and saying, “Yes, please—more money,” but I do think it would help. There are certain one-off costs, such as the reconfiguration of SITS. Seed funding happens quite a lot. Little pilots are started, and a little bit of money is given to get a bit of resource in. Everybody gets used to the fact that it is there, and then they just keep it. Universities are very good at responding to that initial incentive, absorbing it and making it part of their resource base as they move forward, so I think that that would be welcome. If we want this policy to take hold, which we do, it would be money well spent.

The second part of your question is really tricky. I know that policy makers very often go to the most nefarious possible outcome: the wily student who might have mental health problems and thinks, “Aha! I can get a far better service if I do a 1,000 module at Warwick. I’ll just stay on for ages and ages, and get great-value mental health services that are not publicly or privately available for that money.” That would not be a good outcome. However, I am a firm believer that most people are not nefarious, and we should be regulating for the majority of players with good intent rather than evil intent.

There has to be a cut-off at some point, otherwise somebody could do one module but be able to access the library and take up library space forever and ever. On whether somebody should hold things in between, I do not quite know who that would be. There probably needs to be a bit of a time-bound associated status. You do not want to just chuck somebody out the door as soon as they have finished a course. That is not what universities want—universities want stickiness with their graduates and students—but nor do we want loads of library space blocking. There should be a bit of a time-bound lapse.

Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Bill (Second sitting)

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st March 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

Q I am glad that Matthew referred to the local skills improvement plans. I would be interested in hearing what your view is as to what connectivity they should have with the system that is coming forward. That is one question.

My other question is probably to Simon. I started work in the ’90s, and we definitely had a skills shortage then. It seems that we have always had a skills shortage, so why is that? What have we learned or not learned from it? What is wrong with the current system? How will this solve the problem?

Matthew Percival: I will answer both. On the way businesses are thinking about the LSIPs programme, the best model is if it is adding an employer voice into the system for those employers that are currently struggling to have a voice. A lot of employers that feel they are confident with their existing provider relationship—they are understood and are getting what they want—are taking a backseat from LSIPs, because LSIPs are not a skills plan for the area with the totality of all skills needs. It is an extra source of information to try to give a voice to the businesses that are struggling most for a voice at the moment.

If that was to feed into the LLE through a consideration of how we make that information available to learners to make informed choices—I spoke about the LLE being less about someone who is in a job already and how they progress with the current employer, and more about how they navigate the labour market—and we were able to say, “Actually, there is a demand in the local area,” it is the LSIPs that would help work out what the job opportunities are.

What LSIPs will not be able to do, and where there would need to be some extra support in the LLE system, would be giving advice on what training someone would buy that would get them to the point of readiness for an employer to hire them with training, rather than their being fully competent. That is an element to add. That would be the interaction between LSIPs and the LLE for me.

Simon Ashworth: On local skills improvement plans, we have been fortunate to be involved in some of the pilots. Some of the findings for us were that employers are just keen to get individuals with really good basic skills—maths and English—and who turn up on time. They are quite happy to support them with the technical skills. There is almost an acceptance now of getting people in and being willing to invest in them and train them. We should not lose sight, certainly on the local skills improvement plans, of some of those key employability skills.

The question on skills shortages is key. Some of it is a lack of coherence around the skills system—a lack of progression. Apprenticeships are a really good example, where the reforms started with the development of high-level programmes, and lower-level programmes tended to come later. Having progression pathways is important. We also rely too much on imported labour. We have seen that coming back again in the imported skills in construction announced recently.

We see a lack of synergy between some of the Government Departments—the Departments for Work and Pensions, for Education, for Business and Trade—and some conflicting programmes. They are very complex for employers to understand and for learners to access, whether it is the Skills Bootcamp or the Restart programme. They just operate in silos. We need a much more integrated system that does not overlap, which is less complex for employers, and a lack of reliance on foreign labour; those are some of the challenges that we would say are holding things back, as well as having those skills shortages.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

Q Picking up on Toby’s point about the squeezing out of small and medium-sized enterprises, has the CBI done any thinking or work about any fiscal advantages in favour of SMEs to encourage employer engagement in training? It seems that may be a block.

Clearly, we want employers to invest in training as best we can. If SMEs are being excluded, should we be considering, in addition to these measures, some fiscal settlement for SMEs to give them an advantage over the larger employers?

Matthew Percival: You mean outside of the consideration of the LLE—a broader question around skills investment?

[Andy McDonald]

Yes. You said the LLE was not necessarily the silver bullet.

Matthew Percival: Okay. There a couple of things going on there. Yes, I would agree with you, and it links into my point about having a stronger conversation about what it means to create the environment for every business to invest in their skills. SMEs will find different challenges and are in a different environment to larger firms.

One point that is sometimes misunderstood when we think about size is that a big business can be a small business in a place, and the skills conversations are all happening in different places. A number of larger businesses nationally, which have multiple sites, will tell us that they have got excellent provider relationships in one area because their business happens to go with the grain of the sector in that area and it is really prominent, like food manufacturing in Shropshire, and therefore they have got loads of providers available to them.

The same company in a different bit of the country tries to take the same approach and cannot, because there is not the same critical mass of similar businesses in the area to make it economic for the providers to offer to the same extent. Size can be the business’s size to the local economy, rather than the business’s size as a business individually. Both of those factors are at play here.

[The Chair]

With a brief final question, Toby Perkins.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Perkins]

Thank you.

[Andy McDonald]

Q Sir Philip, you talked earlier about the role of parents and pupils, and their ability to make informed choices. In the course of your work, did you come to any views about engagement with business? As MPs, we see a mixed bag in terms of business engagement in the education system and the transfer of knowledge about opportunity. Did you come to any views about whether, for example, there is space in the curriculum to develop this sort of awareness and engagement? How important is that?

Sir Philip Augar: It is a very good point, and the panel did engage directly with employers and representative organisations. We had a number of roundtable meetings and invited them all along. The response varied, frankly. Some representative bodies and some employers absolutely got it. There is possibly a sense in other quarters of, “Look, this really isn’t our problem. We can’t get the staff, you know.” Actually, that is your problem. I am a big fan of the LSIPs. The engagement between local business, local education providers, chambers of commerce and the rest has the potential to close the gap that you identify, and I agree with you.

[Andy McDonald]

Q But is there space in the curriculum in our schools and colleges?

Sir Philip Augar: I am not so sure that it is actually in the curriculum, but it is a close adjunct to the curriculum in terms of professional, carefully considered, disciplined provision of information and guidance about career opportunities and further and higher education opportunities—not just when you are leaving a place but throughout your life. It is a core part of the rounded function of a good school and college.

[Andy McDonald]

Thank you.

[The Chair]

We are coming to the last couple of minutes. A brief question from Matt Western.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

I will come back to the hon. Gentleman.

On disability, I am appealing to the Chancellor to think again. We will support him in reversing the cuts in personal independence payments for disabled people. If he can fund capital gains tax giveaways for the richest 5%, he can find the money to reverse this cruel and unnecessary cut.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Chancellor is not going to listen to the Opposition on the draconian cuts to these benefits, he will perhaps listen to Graeme Ellis, the chair of the Conservative Disability Group, who, as a result of these pernicious cuts, is cutting all links with the Conservative party?

[John McDonnell]

I just say this across the House: this is a very important issue—we will not make party politics of this. As someone who has campaigned on disability issues in the House for 18 years, I sincerely urge all Members to press the Chancellor to think again. This cut is cruel, and it is, unfortunately, dangerous for the wellbeing of disabled people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

The Chancellor hailed his Budget as being for the “next generation”, so I want to focus on a nationally significant research and development, industrial and economic issue that feeds through from STEM subjects—science, technology, engineering and maths—to higher education and into our industrial base, to which I urge the Government to give their attention. Disappointingly, there was nothing in yesterday’s Budget to address this matter, but I wish to address it now.

Against the backdrop of the steel closure debacle at SSI on Teesside, many deficiencies and challenges were identified in our steel industry, and several asks were made of the Government. Sadly, there was no meaningful or timely intervention from them to save the SSI plant, which employed many hundreds of my constituents, but there could have been and there should have been. Although, without doubt, the entire materials sector is still critical to the UK economy, it is also widely accepted that critically important innovation in the sector is patchy and poorly co-ordinated. The UK industry Metals Forum has said:

“A forward-thinking, collaborative approach to R&D will have embedded innovation throughout the industry, from the smallest firms to the largest, directed by customers’ needs.”

In the UK, the catapult concept is where we have the mechanism for innovation intervention whereby we transform our capability and drive economic growth. Sadly, there is no catapult for the metals and materials sector, but there is an opportunity right under the Government’s nose and I ask them to seize it. The proposal is a joint one from the Materials Processing Institute, the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining, and The Welding Institute—TWI—which jointly propose to meet that very need by establishing a new national materials catapult, as a not-for-profit partnership. The partners have letters of support from leading universities, which show this to be a major concern for the development and upscaling of fundamental research. There is widespread support for the proposal across industry. In a short period, more than 50 letters of support have been received from employer associations, trade associations, industry, small and medium-sized enterprises, universities, the public sector and private consultants.

The beauty of the proposal is that the partners are already in play. The catapult will work with universities and the other catapults, across all the sectors, and it would be headquartered at the campus of the Materials Processing Institute in Redcar, in close proximity to TWI in Middlesbrough and Teesside industry. Of course, the proposed location for the catapult would also enable the Government to deliver on the commitment they made in the Tees valley city deal, signed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), to encourage Innovate UK to establish this catapult at the Tees valley innovation and commercialisation hub.

The concept of a materials catapult was raised by the CBI in 2014 and has been reaffirmed in its Treasury submission in advance of yesterday’s Budget. Support has also been expressed by UK Steel and FSB, but, sadly, that was not reflected by the Chancellor yesterday. With the partners having collectively more than 300 years of experience, world-leading facilities and an immediate national presence, the catapult presents excellent value for money. There are minimal start-up costs and because it is proposed to use existing buildings there is no lead- in time for construction activity. The ask is for £5 million per annum of revenue support and £2 million per annum of capital, under the normal catapult funding model, and an initial capital award of about £10 million to fund equipment for core projects. The catapult will leverage recent and secured future investments that have been used to upgrade materials research and support facilities in Rotherham, Port Talbot and Cambridge, as well as on the two sites in the Tees valley.

[Alex Cunningham]

This must be an organisation worth backing because this week it actually started a new steel production facility on Teesside.

[Andy McDonald]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that, and it shows the value of these initiatives. I regret to say that sometimes we have to keep on pressing and repeating these requests. We are talking about a major contribution to our economy and it should be grasped, because, based on previous studies, a benefit of £15 per £1 of Government spending would be expected, giving a gross value added benefit of £75 million per annum.

The catapult is needed by industry nationally and could be delivered immediately. It would give some credibility to the much-vaunted but singularly absent northern powerhouse. The catapult is an entirely appropriate response to the steel crisis and builds on existing capabilities and expertise. It is cost effective and would have an immediate positive impact on UK companies. As well as that fifteenfold return, it could be a beacon for inward investment, and there is the real potential for a £300 million project to come to the catapult.

The catapult would improve productivity in the materials sector, strengthen manufacturing supply chains and drive growth by supporting new and growing technology-based small and medium-sized enterprises. It would improve international competitiveness by addressing the UK’s relative disadvantage in materials innovation compared with Germany, the USA and Japan.

I urge the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills not to block this proposal, because I am convinced that it is vital for our industrial base and will provide immediate and significant research and employment opportunities. It will be readily achievable and make a huge contribution to our economy.

Further Education Colleges (North-east)

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 26th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) on securing this debate. She outlined what is self-evident to many of us in the north-east: we have a good network of further education colleges.

I do not have a further education college in my constituency. My learners access Derwentside College in Consett and New College Durham. They also travel further afield to Newcastle and Sunderland and to other colleges in the region. As my hon. Friend outlined, some go to Darlington and Teesside. The colleges are an asset to our region. It is clear to anyone who speaks to or visits any of them that they are not inward-looking institutions—they are dynamic and forward-thinking. Derwentside College has a good liaison with local engineering companies, both large and small. It not only engages in recognising and understanding what further training is needed, but actively takes part in encouraging young people and adult learners to think of a career in engineering.

New College is an outward-looking institution that sponsors two academies: one in Stanley in my constituency and one in Consett, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass). That initiative was spearheaded by John Widdowson, who is the chief executive of the college. He is working well to build the link between the school sector and the FE sector. He is giving great opportunities in Stanley to many young people. In addition, New College has 200 international students from across the world who come to study there.

I had the privilege last year of visiting Newcastle College’s new railway engineering academy. That initiative came from the college, which recognised that there is a skills shortage in the rail sector. It is now providing well-qualified people for jobs—in some cases, those jobs are highly paid—in the rail sector. That college is taking the initiative. In the north-east, we have colleges that are not just allowing the world to pass them by; they are taking the initiative to understand what the business community and their local communities require.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

While my hon. Friend is acknowledging some of the work across the region, will he pay tribute to Middlesbrough College’s work on its remarkable new science, technology, engineering and maths centre? That was launched recently, very much with the involvement of local employers, the manufacturing base and the supply chain.

[Mr Jones]

Yes, I will. It is a good example of how local colleges are taking the lead, not by just putting on courses that they hope people will come to, but by working with employers to ensure that the courses they offer are needed by young people and adult learners and by local businesses. This might be an old-fashioned thing, but in our region, the colleges and the education sector are raising awareness that careers in engineering and manufacturing are a way forward and not a thing of the past.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 15th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

First, I accept the invitation—thank you very much. I also take the opportunity to commend my hon. Friend for her leadership of the Science and Technology Committee and the way in which has made the case so well for science. I can confirm that the ring fence is protected in real terms, not just cash terms. I also confirm our manifesto commitment to spend £6.9 billion on science infrastructure over the next six years. I am sure that she will agree that, this Christmas, batteries are included.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

T9. I previously raised with the Secretary of State the Teesside Collective’s industrial carbon capture and storage ambitions, which will not only contribute massively to the climate change agenda, but secure existing industries and attract investment. In the light of the Paris agreement, will he meet me and industrialists leading that key initiative to explore how we might bring that important project to fruition?

[Anna Soubry]

I hope that I do not disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but I am more than happy to have a meeting with him. He knows the terms on which we always have our meetings: not to shout at me. [Interruption.] Only in the House. I hope that he will join me in congratulating the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change on her outstanding achievement on behalf of our nation in playing a full and important role in securing the excellent way forward to ensure that the planet that we leave for our children will be better than the one that we inherited. Yes, I will have the meeting.

Trade Union Bill

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Stephens]

May I move on and make some progress? I apologise, and I will take further interventions later.

New clause 2 would modernise the law promoting democracy and inclusion—the word “modernisation” keeps getting used by the Conservatives in support of the Bill. Currently, all ballots and elections must be conducted on a fully postal basis. Unlike major companies and other membership organisations—including political parties—trade union members are not allowed to vote online. The Government have consistently described the Bill as an attempt to “modernise” trade unions, but to date they have not allowed trade unions to modernise into the 21st century by using electronic and workplace balloting.

The Government argue that the introduction of thresholds for strike action balloting would boost democracy, but that only stifles the possibility of workers’ voices being heard. If the Government were committed to boosting workplace democracy, they would allow secure workplace balloting and balloting by electronic means, as our amendment suggests.

Online balloting is more accessible and inclusive. Today, most people use electronic devices every day to make transactions and to communicate. We in the SNP use online ballots, and as we have heard, so did the Conservatives in the election of their mayoral candidate. Ballot papers are usually sent to members’ home addresses, which can lead to lower turnouts, especially when junk mail is flying through people’s doors on a regular basis and things can easily get dumped in the bin. Modern methods of voting are more efficient and help negotiations to move faster. Using only postal ballots could prolong the length of a dispute because they simply take longer.

According to the latest Ofcom figures, 83% of people now have access to broadband and 66% of households own a smartphone. Those figures are likely to be higher among those of working age, and they are set to rise rapidly. The 2014 Electoral Commission survey involved 1,205 adults aged over 18, and found that 42% of respondents felt that online voting would increase their confidence by “a lot” or “a little” in the way that elections are run.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in the run-up to Christmas, people will be engaging electronically by purchasing goods and materials across the piece? I do not hear Conservative Members saying that there is something fundamentally wrong with that process, or saying, “We’re not going to have you doing that.” Is this not ridiculous? It is just a ruse to say, “We don’t want people to engage with trade unions.” That is what it is about.

[Chris Stephens]

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps it is because Conservative Members fear the inevitable visit of three ghosts on Christmas eve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Djanogly]

I am not here to accuse anyone. If the hon. Lady thinks that the 1984 legislation was introduced because there were no instances of intimidation at that time, we need to go back to the history books. I do not intend to do that today. I am not saying that postal ballots will always be free from intimidation, particularly if several members of the same family work in the same place. I appreciate that new clause 7 requires that votes at the workplace are private and free from unfairness, but the question is how far does that go? Does it cover only the voting room or the factory premises? What about beyond the factory gates and the pickets? I am concerned that this could be a retrograde step.

[Andy McDonald]

The hon. Gentleman talks about intimidation in the workplace. He is a lawyer. Let us have some evidence to back that up, rather than just putting it out there and casting aspersions. Get on and give us some evidence.

[Mr Djanogly]

As I said before, we are looking at the optimum way of voting. The Opposition’s new clause 9 provides for the possibility of a combination of voting methods to be used, but I note that the combination is to be selected by the union. Unless I have read it wrong —someone might want to put me right—this could imply that workplace-only ballots could, in effect, be reintroduced via the back door. Again, I would see that as a step backwards that should not be supported.

On electronic voting, it could be said that this is where society is heading, a point made very strongly by the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), and that union law should take the lead on something that will be generally adopted. I have not seen the most recent opinions of the Electoral Commission on e-voting, but I recall that it had serious concerns about its security a few years ago. Will the Minister please advise the House to what extent he has discussed this with the Electoral Commission, and whether he has reviewed the role of the certification officer with that of the Electoral Commission in the conduct of ballots? In that regard, if in the future we wished to move towards electronic voting generally, could this be effective for unions under existing legislation, such as the provisions in section 54 of the Employment Relations Act 2004? In other words, are the e-voting amendments required at all?

If only because of the technological changes, this has been a useful debate. However, I am not yet convinced, in terms of security, that the proposals are the correct way to go at the current time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery]

This individual, who runs a private health organisation the length and breadth of the UK, was asked if she had read the Bill. She said, “Not really.” She was then asked, “Have you read most of the Bill?” “Not really.” “Do you understand what facility time is?” “Not really. What is facility time?” She did not even understand life and limb cover, which is integral to trade union law, whereby if there is a problem that is a life and limb issue, trade union representatives will break off industrial action to ensure that people are safe. And, let me say, she was the best witness we had.

[Andy McDonald]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the existence of facility time is beneficial to the good running of any public authority or business, and that eroding it will cause immense difficulties in terms of productivity if union representation cannot be provided for union members in the workplace?

[Ian Lavery]

Absolutely. Many, many papers have been presented by professors, doctors and other experts with regard to facility time. There have been many battles on industrial relations problems over many, many years—decades and decades—resulting in a decent industrial relations policy that allows for facility time. Facility time could involve, for example, discussions on health and safety, avoidance of industrial disputes or avoidance of the progression of court cases. It is not about people sitting in an office on the telephone organising disputes—quite the opposite; it is about trying to avoid these disputes.

Trade Union Bill

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab]

: I have been a trade unionist since I was 18 and am currently a member of Unison. I have also spent six weeks on strike. My then young family suffered the consequences and we got into debt as a result. It took a while for us to recover, but recover we did, and we benefited in the longer term after the dispute was settled. Nobody wants to strike. I had two young boys and I went on strike not for the fun of it, nor in some bizarre attempt to damage my employer or his customers, but because my employer was being unjust and it took a walk-out for him to come to his senses and offer a fair wage settlement.

The law allowed us to strike, but only after we had cleared the hurdles or met the criteria laid down by the then new Thatcher Tory union legislation. We did not like Thatcher’s restrictions but we worked within them. The Tories of the day thought they were balanced and provided protection for the employers and the wider public; I thought they were extreme. But now the current Tory Government want to impose more restrictions, which could see local unpaid trade unionists dragged into court for all manner of reasons including placing messages on Facebook or Twitter without giving the requisite notice demanded by the Government.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that every time the Tories come to Parliament to introduce these sorts of powers, which are ever-more draconian, they always say they are balanced and reasonable?

[Alex Cunningham]

They certainly do, and they have said the same of this legislation today.

The Tories have made a big thing about opposing identity cards, but now demand that trade unionists have them as well as armbands to help single them out, yet it is unclear how compliance with these and other requirements are connected to the prevention of intimidation of non-striking workers. Laws already exist which prevent that and unions must comply with a detailed statutory code of practice.

Peaceful protest is an important part of an open and democratic society, and there should be no place for a law that makes criminals of people making their voices heard in this way. But the Minister’s eagerness to undermine the trades unions, and put limits on their members’ rights to freedom of expression, makes me wonder exactly what it is that he is scared of. Perhaps this is just a mechanism to sting the unions in the pocket and to silence the inevitable protests that will come as the Government continue to erode the rights of workers and screw down pay, particularly in the public sector.

Let us not forget that public sector workers in particular are already under the cosh. The recently announced extension of pay restraint will hurt these workers for a further four years, with most having already been hit pretty hard with poorer deals on pensions, and many others now facing the prospect of losing their job as deeper cuts to the public sector continue to bite.

The ability of workers to withdraw labour is fundamental to our democracy and I am not aware of any democracy elsewhere in the world that imposes such severe restrictions on legitimate industrial action. It is worth remembering that the UK already has one of the most regulated systems of industrial action in the world.

The Bill dictates that industrial action, including strike action, will only be lawful if a minimum 50% turnout among those trade union members entitled to vote is achieved, while additionally requiring 40% of those members balloted to vote in favour of industrial action across what the Government term “important public services”. This term is of great significance. The Tory manifesto, as well as the subsequent Queen’s Speech briefings, stated that the 40% requirement would apply only to four “essential public services”: health, fire, transport and education services. Yet the Government have now extended this list to include other sectors, such as border security, the decommissioning of nuclear installations and the management of radioactive waste.

I would also welcome any clarity the Minister can provide around how he intends to escape the inevitable confusion arising when attempting to ballot a workplace where some occupations are covered by the “important public services” provisions and others are not. Will the Minister give further details on the requirement for “reasonably detailed” information to be provided on ballot papers? If a failure to provide such information is to be a basis for legal action by employers against workers taking industrial action, it is crucial that the House should be informed in advance of how “reasonably detailed” is to be defined.

The Government also peddle the claim that the 40% requirement will legitimise any ballot outcome. Have they considered what that would have meant if applied to them in the ballots they faced just a few months ago? I have, and it is a fact that 16 of the 27 Ministers who attend Cabinet would never have been returned to Parliament if they had needed 40% of their total electorate to vote for them.

The Bill will create substantial legal and administrative costs for unions, which will be required to report annually to the certification officer on levels of industrial action and on how political funds have been used. This is on top of additional cost burdens elsewhere, should the changes to check-off procedures and facility time pass unamended. There is no parity under these rules with the functions of other civil society or campaign groups. If the political use of union funds has to be reported regularly and in detail, perhaps we should have a parallel system for those companies whose donations fund the Tory party. They, too, should be compelled to outline in similar detail to shareholders, at regular intervals, how they have spent their money funding their friends on the Government Benches.

In relation to modernisation, the last Tory-Lib Dem Government continued the good progress made by Labour to promote e-government and all manner of new ways of doing business more efficiently. Surely our unions should be able to do likewise, with online ballots to maximise participation and ensure a clear mandate for industrial action. Sadly, the Government do not appear to favour that. Will the Minister tell us why not?

The Government claim to be the party of working people, but threatening the right to take industrial action tilts the balance of power in the workplace too far in favour of employers. It will mean that workers are unable to stand up for decent services and safety at work, or to defend their jobs or pay. It is clear that the Government are not interested in encouraging workplace democracy. Instead, they are attempting to prevent midwives, firefighters, teachers and cleaners from protesting against cuts in jobs, pay and conditions. I find this unacceptable, and I very much hope that the Government will reconsider these calamitous proposals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

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

Last year, Pope Francis said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Chris Philp.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

Over the course of history, the workplace has been the scene of many grave injustices: slavery, child labour, squalid and dangerous working conditions, and desperately low pay. A lot of that has been eradicated, although sadly not for all in the United Kingdom.

Even in the modern workplace, there still exists an imbalance of power between the employer, who can decide, often unilaterally, on terms, conditions and pay, and the employee, who is dependent on the employer for work. Individuals who want to negotiate with their employer to improve their lot may not have direct access to them or fear recriminations if they approach them alone. That is well known in this House, as it should be. In a world where there is always someone else available to do a job, potentially for less money, this power structure can lead to poor pay, unsafe conditions, discrimination, and exploitation.

In the UK, a lot of the bad things have been got rid of because of what the unions and other campaigning organisations have done. Even so, only a short time ago we were legislating against modern-day slavery. We have made changes in this House in relation to employment tribunals and unfair dismissals. The reintroduction of charges on individuals who want to claim for unfair dismissal has reduced the number of such claims by 70%.

[Andy McDonald]

Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that successive Conservative Members have praised trade unions and extolled their virtues and their value, and in the next breath said that they want to restrict their freedoms and abilities to function as trade unions? Does he find that that rings hollow?

[Kevin Barron]

It rings very hollow.

The Government would have us believe that they are impartial in passing legislation relating to the balance between employer and employee, but they are not impartial at all. In fact, in their capacity as an employer they have a significant vested interest in undermining the actions and the future of trade unions. The state is a huge employer, and over 54% of public sector employees belong to a trade union. We should not be surprised that in some parts of this Bill the Government are looking particularly to attack public sector trade unions, because trade unionism now stands more in the public sector than in the private sector.

Over the past five years, the relationship between the Government and a number of public sector unions has been particularly difficult. It is called austerity. It is called having your income limited, perhaps when you have a partner and children at home and have to try to keep their heads above water. It is about being called “difficult” when perhaps some of your neighbours who work in the private sector are able to carry on getting their income increased and looking after themselves. That is why there is disgruntlement. I genuinely believe that this Bill is about the Government acting as an employer, not as somebody who is impartial to industrial relations in this country, to attack the public sector and its workforce.

There is little evidence—in fact, there is an overwhelming lack of evidence—that change in this area is needed. The Secretary of State mentioned the Carr review, which was set up in April 2014 and reported in October 2014. It looked at issues of intimidation. Frankly, it was right to do so. However, it found little evidence of intimidation. Nevertheless, on the basis of that report the Government have decided to introduce this legislation. The review said:

“I have reached the conclusion that it will simply not be possible for the review to put together a substantial enough body of evidence from which to provide a sound basis for making recommendations for change”.

Yet here we are, a few months later, with the Government attempting to legislate in this area. It is absolutely ridiculous.

Individually and cumulatively, these proposals will fundamentally damage the capacity of unions to organise strikes. Many of these are not needed, but having the right to go on strike is an important tool on the table when you are sat down negotiating on behalf of members. I did it in the coal industry for many years before I came here. I understand why trade unionism was right, and my father and his father understood it as well—it is because people used to get killed down the pits on a daily basis until the unions came in and fought for members. This Bill undermines that.