Education and Local Services

Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts

Tuesday 27th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

I will come on to funding later, but suffice it to say that it is important we make sure that all our schools are fairly funded. That challenge is recognised across the House. Clearly there are difficulties in doing that.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

Does the right hon. Lady feel that education and local services in England would be helped in any way by the large part of £30 billion that would be the Barnett consequential of money for England as a result of the deal in Northern Ireland, given what the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) just said about the North Shore Academy in his constituency?

[Justine Greening]

Our manifesto pledged to increase education funding. The challenge that the hon. Gentleman’s part of our United Kingdom faces is the real issue of its standards lagging significantly behind those of England in relation to scores on the programme for international student assessment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justine Greening]

I notice that the hon. Gentleman did not answer my question. [Interruption.] There will be plenty more time to dig into the Labour proposals for higher education and what they mean for the most disadvantaged children in the country.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I hope that it is a point of order, rather than merely a point of frustration.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

Is it in order, Mr Speaker, for Front-Bench Government spokespeople to put questions to Back-Bench Members of the Opposition? They are there to defend their record; it is not for the Opposition to do so.

[Mr Speaker]

There is nothing disorderly about it. It is not in that sense, I must tell the hon. Gentleman, narrowly analogous to Question Time. At Question Time, I have said now and again to Ministers that it is not for them to ask questions; they are there to answer questions. A debate is a more seamless enterprise, as I think the hon. Gentleman, who is an experienced denizen of the House, must know. It is perfectly in order for the Secretary of State to pose an inquiry to a Member, just as it is perfectly in order for another Member wholly to disregard it. I call the Secretary of State.

Trade Union Bill

Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Wednesday 27th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

I realise that time is short, so I shall be brief. Welcome as it is that the Government have been forced into a series of embarrassing U-turns, my party, which does not receive funding from the trade union movement, does not regard the Bill as a sensible attempt to look at some of the issues relating to party funding. Clearly, that should be done in the round and fairly, including looking at trade union funding, and we would support such an approach. This always set out to be a cynical, politically motivated Bill that undermines the important role that trade unions play in the democratic process. Encouragingly, Members in the other place have acted in a measured and cross-party way. Rather than simply striking down rafts of the Bill, as many would have liked—we would have liked to see that for some parts of the Bill—they have suggested cross-party, sensible and measured amendments.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

Is it not amazing that a party that tells us all that it is in favour of the free market has in this case resorted to very high-handed regulation?

[Greg Mulholland]

It certainly presents itself as an extremely draconian Bill whose drafting involved no collaboration of any kind.

I think that, welcome though it is, the Government’s change of heart has not gone far enough. I echo the words of the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard): it is clear that the Government have realised that they cannot make enemies of the trade unions when they need the trade union movement in order to secure a “yes” vote—an “in” vote—in the EU referendum. I look forward to working with trade unionists, with the Government, and with members of all parties in seeking to achieve that.

Time is short. Let me end by saying that, given the Government’s welcome U-turn, we will not oppose the amendment. Nevertheless, the Government have simply failed to make the case that electronic voting is not a sensible, modern way forward, which exposes the fact this is really about trying to stop trade unions from reaching the threshold rather than sensibly reforming the system. Alongside others, we will continue to make the case for such reform.

I believe that the Government should think again about the attitude to trade unions that they have shown during this process, and should work together with parties.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Nicky Morgan]

I am going to make some progress and then I will give way again.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Are you sure it is?

[Mr MacNeil]

Fairly sure, Mr Deputy Speaker. This debate is about schools in this country. Clearly, “this country” is not the UK—it is England. This debate does not apply to Scotland. That is not made clear, and in the days of English votes for English laws, it should be clear.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

That is not a point of order.

Trade Union Bill

Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I would like the answer to a question. If the amendments that would allow the Scottish Government to give their consent were accepted, would you drop your—[Interruption.] Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. In those circumstances, would the SNP drop the other amendments as it would have a say in its own Parliament?

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

Collective bargaining!

[Chris Stephens]

Collective bargaining, indeed.

It is important that public bodies across the United Kingdom have a say and give their consent as to whether provisions in the Bill should be passed. I also believe that if a public body gives its consent, it should be possible for that consent to be taken away on a future occasion. The Mayor of London, to use an example that was given earlier, is perhaps the best example of that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens]

The last time I looked in the mirror, yes, I am a real person, like many other trade unionists in this country.

I am pleased that Labour amendments seek to restrict the application of provisions relating to facility time and check-off, and they will get our support. Once again, alongside the principled and substantive arguments that will no doubt be presented, it will come out that there is no mandate across the public sector for the Bill.

[Mr MacNeil]

Is it not strange that a Tory party that always talks to us about regulation and red tape is today introducing more regulation and more red tape, and “choking the arteries of commerce”, as was once said in a famous TV programme in Scotland? We are looking at Tory dinosaur behaviour that goes back to the 1970s.

[Chris Stephens]

I think it is perhaps worse than that because such behaviour comes from a political party which has a laissez-faire attitude to the economy until it comes to the trade union movement. It goes from laissez-faire to Stalinism with no intervening periods whatsoever.

Trade Union Bill

Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ms Eagle]

My message is that the Mayor should start doing his job and help to respond to the dispute.

There is no necessity to employ the law in this draconian way, especially when this country already has the most restrictive trade union laws in Europe. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, the trade group for the human resources sector, has criticised the Bill as an “outdated response” to today’s challenges, commenting that the

“Government proposals seem to be targeting yesterday’s problem instead of addressing the reality of modern workplaces”.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Lady not find it amazing that 99% of the time the Conservatives go on about regulation and red tape in business and the workplace? What are they trying to do now but introduce regulation and red tape unseen in Germany, Norway or other major economies of Europe? This is just a symptom of low-pay Britain.

[Ms Eagle]

I shall come on to the smothering of trade union administration in what I will call “blue tape” later in my speech. I agree with the hon. Gentleman and I hope that he will join us in the Lobby tonight to vote against the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

I rise in total opposition to this Bill. Let me declare my Unison membership and my 20 years of trade union activity before my election. In my maiden speech in this place, I said:

“The trade union movement gave me a political education and the confidence to stand for election, and I know that this experience is shared with other Members who did not have a privileged start in life.”—[Official Report, 4 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 832.]

I will never be ashamed of being a trade unionist.

The irony of this Bill is that it comes from a political party that believes the answer in today’s world is to deregulate—except in the case of the trade union movement and trade union law. The unions are subjected to heavy regulation, which the Tories bitterly oppose in other circumstances. This is a timely reminder that this Government fear the trade union movement and that this Government know they can be defeated. That is because the trade union movement is the largest group in civic society that stands up against exploitation. The Bill will lead to a deterioration of good industrial relations and it has no support within public opinion. It is designed to reduce civil liberties and human rights.

The Bill also displays a remarkable ignorance—we have heard about that from several speakers already. The Government attempt to justify this Bill by citing industrial action that actually meets the thresholds. The Bill seeks to introduce the 40% rule, but I think it is dangerous for this Government to introduce that rule because the last time a Government tried to introduce such a rule, which affected Scotland, they had a low majority and they ended up being kicked out in a vote of no confidence. We will have the situation where dead people will be described as “not supporting” industrial action. That is why the thresholds are dangerous.

[Mr MacNeil]

Does my hon. Friend not think it even stranger that the 40% threshold is demanded by a Government who got only 24% of the electorate vote overall and only 10.5% of the electorate vote in Scotland? They were rejected by 90% of the voters of Scotland.

[Chris Stephens]

Yes, I agree. In Scotland, at the last election, the Conservative party received its lowest share of the vote since universal suffrage began. If the Government are going to introduce thresholds, they need to consider securing workplace balloting, which could be easily sorted out by Electoral Reform Services, or online voting. Political parties use online voting when selecting their candidates, so the suggestion that there might be fraud is nonsense.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and to the fact that I am a member of the GMB and Unison.

This Bill is illegal, illiberal and illiterate: illegal because it contravenes international standards; illiberal because it takes a hatchet to civil liberties; and illiterate because it is badly drafted and will leave the law in a mess, creating uncertainty and cost not only for trade unions, but for employers. The reason it is so badly drafted is that it is a crudely partisan measure that the Conservative party is seeking to rush through for purely political ends.

Why are we debating the Bill today? Is there any urgency for these provisions, or any demand resulting from the parliamentary timetable? No, there is not. We all know why we are here today. We are here today because the Government deliberately timetabled the Bill’s Second Reading to coincide with the first full day of the Trades Union Congress, when those MPs who are proud trade unionists, as I am, would have been in Brighton talking with working people about the issues that really matter, such as low pay, zero-hours contracts, inequality and insecurity at work. Instead, we are here to discuss this shabby, shameful Bill. That shows the Government’s contempt not only for trade unions, but for democracy.

The Bill was published on 16 July. Consultations were scheduled to take place over the summer recess and closed only five days ago. This debate was scheduled for today even though the Bill is incomplete and the Government have accepted that it will require many amendments. The clearest example of that is on the deduction of union subscriptions. On 6 August the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General announced the Government’s intention

“to abolish the practice of checkoff across all public sector organisations”.

He announced that those changes would be in the Bill, so where are they? Where are the proposals and the draft clauses? They are nowhere to be seen. There is neither a timetable for publication of those clauses, nor a commitment to any period of consultation. The Bill is a disgraceful attack on the right of employers and unions to freely negotiate arrangements that best secure constructive industrial relations.

Before being elected to this House, I was a director of a significant private sector employer, responsible for industrial relations with around 1,000 members of staff. We recognised a trade union to represent our staff, to collectively bargain on their behalf, to represent their interests and to ensure that we could discuss with them any changes necessary for the continued success of the business in the best interests of staff. To do that, we had check-off and facility time in place. As we have heard from many Members today, deductions from payroll are a common way for employers to help employees with regular payments. Many Members make payments to charity through our payroll and the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. It is good enough for them, but it seems that it will not be good enough for trade union members. Check-off arrangements worked for us as an employer and for our staff, and it was freely agreed. Many employers in both the private and public sectors feel the same.

I will finish with a point about devolution and the inadequacies of the Bill. The Bill deals with public services that are devolved to Wales, including the way public sector bodies work with trade unions to ensure effective delivery of services to the public, including my constituents in Cardiff Central. Therefore, I ask the Secretary of State to heed the warning from my Labour colleague, the First Minister of Wales, that there are necessary and critically important changes that must be made to the Bill. But I would go further. It is an unnecessary, dangerous and flawed Bill.

[Mr MacNeil]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Jo Stevens]

I will not give way.

I urge the Government to listen not only to me and to my colleagues on the Opposition Benches, but to the business community, civil liberties organisations, respected academics, trade unions and, most importantly, the public—

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)]

For the record, I am not, and never have been, a member of a trade union. I want to bring to the debate my perspective as a former council leader at Midlothian council, where I worked closely with the local trade unions. In that role, essentially working between the management and the unions, I saw the real benefits and genuine improvements, which we can never take away from, that trade unions can bring to their members and wider society.

I have always found that working together across disagreements and towards a common goal is the best way to achieve success, not the Dickensian-style sledgehammer proposed in the Bill. When even Conservative Members are referring to the Bill as “Franco-style”, we have to recognise that there is something seriously wrong. In Midlothian council, by working closely with our trade unions and negotiating between the unions and the management, and thanks to the SNP Administration, we were able to introduce a living wage—a genuine living wage, not the pretend one the Government are trying to palm off on people—within a few months of coming to office in May 2012.

That is not the only thing we managed. We worked closely with union representatives to deliver a non-compulsory redundancy policy that allowed further staff development. By doing so, we engaged the unions when it came to the difficult budget decisions necessary as a result of the Government’s austerity agenda. The Bill, by alienating trade unions and making it almost impossible for them to operate in a reasonable environment, would utterly threaten that approach and completely undermine the positive progress that is possible when people work together.

Only this afternoon, a group of scientists employed at the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology in Midlothian had to take the unprecedented step of strike action. These are members of the Prospect trade union who felt there was no choice left other than to take strike action. These are not the kind of people many Government Members have talked about—they have painted a picture of bully picket lines and monstrous picket actions—but workers who have tried all other possible measures and felt they needed to take strike action for the first time in over 30 years.

[Mr MacNeil]

My hon. Friend is indeed giving a different perspective from the other side of the table from the trade unions. Does he agree that in Scotland this law is not needed or wanted and is in fact an alien law that will create difficulties rather than help?

[Owen Thompson]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. In fact, many of the issues raised could be dealt with through general legislation rather than a specific trade union Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

I declare an interest in this debate as a proud member of my trade union Unite.

The freedom to speak out against injustice and to campaign for economic equality and the rights and freedoms of workers is underpinned by the European convention on human rights—rights that were bitterly fought for by the blood, sweat and tears of our ancestors. The Government claim that they are forced to amend those rights, and we are led to believe that that is because the number of strikes called in recent years is a threat to our economic wellbeing. The total number of days lost in the 12 months preceding April 2015 was 704,000, but before the House becomes hysterical about that, it is important to note that historically that figure was in the millions. In fact, we are experiencing an all-time low for strike action, and it is at its lowest level since before 1990. The simple truth is that workers do not take the decision to strike lightly, and they never have.

Is this Bill justified? The European convention clearly states in article 11 that a restriction on the right to strike would be judged by reference to whether it is

“necessary in a democratic society”.

With strike action at an all-time low. I see no legal justification for such savage stripping of fundamental democratic rights.

Let us leave human rights to one side for a moment and examine the next strand of the Government’s argument, which is that trade union activity and the right to collectively bargain poses an economic threat. That is simply not the case. Evidence provided by the New Economics Foundation recently concluded that as a wage-led economy, the UK’s prosperity depends on a substantial share of the national income going to wages. If we look at wage equality over the last four decades, we see that while many employers are equitable, a substantial number are not. Those employers share less of the profit that they generate with workers, and they do not alternatively invest that money in future industrial strategy. It is therefore critical that organisations that champion collective bargaining are able to represent their workers, and that those workers have the right to bargain collectively for their share in company and national revenue.

[Mr MacNeil]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I apologise but I must make progress. I am conscious that a lot of Members wish to speak.

I stress that such rights are not simply to improve workers’ living standards, but to enable the functioning of the economy as a whole. If wages continue to fall in real terms that implies a shrinking of the market. That inhibits profit and growth, and results in a vast reduction in the amounts recoverable in taxes by the Treasury. Indeed, proponents of the competitive market—including those on the Government Benches—would do well to understand that intrinsic to its very existence is not just the supply and demand of labour, but the freedom of labour to move and organise. Members who are fans of the free market mantras of Milton Friedman and co. will no doubt notice a real contradiction in terms. On the one hand, the Government advocate freedom and deregulation of company activity in their promotion of free market ideologies, but when it comes to the activity of workers it is a completely different story.

It is clear that the arguments in favour of this Bill do not stack up. This Bill is a clear breach of the European convention and poses a real and present danger to our economic viability as a nation. I call on Members to reject this Bill today. Failure to do so will open an economic and democratic Pandora’s box that unleashes something so pernicious that we will not be able to close the lid again.

International Women’s Day

Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Spelman]

I hope that today’s Hansard will be read, and that more hon. Gentlemen will be in the Chamber in subsequent debates on international women’s day. We sought this debate to mark that day, of which this year’s theme is entitled, “Make it happen”. It is important for us in Parliament to mark the day, and in doing so we are standing with women all around the world who will mark it in their own forums and in their own way.

The year 2015 is an auspicious one for international women’s rights, because it is precisely 20 years since the Beijing declaration and platform for action, on which my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) led the UK delegation. That occasion really moved forward the world’s understanding, with an agenda for women’s empowerment which particularly focused on health care, education and violence against women.

2015 is an auspicious year for a debate on international women’s day because the millennium development goals come to fruition and the post-2015 framework that will follow them is in the throes of being decided. It is important to ensure that the concerns of women are at the heart of that debate because, as is often said, globally, poverty has a woman’s face. In 2015 the World Bank will also announce its social safeguards, including gender equality throughout its work.

Let me mention the important work of the United Nations Women organisation, which was established in 2010, and its head and executive director, Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka. It works on several key areas: leadership and political participation, as well as ending violence against women. I wish to focus on its work on economic empowerment, and what it is doing to make that happen. It is important to increase gender equality, reduce poverty and encourage growth, but empowering women to work and empowering women economically is necessary to break down the disadvantage they suffer from. When more women work, economies grow. If women’s paid employment rates were raised to the same level as men’s, the United States’ gross domestic product would be an estimated 9% higher, that of the eurozone would climb by 13%, and Japan’s would be boosted by 16%. Therefore, in 15 major developing economies, per capita income would rise by 14%. That is the evidence produced by UN Women.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

I am listening intently to the right hon. Lady, and she is making a good argument that I have heard in many places. It is essentially an argument for equality—gender equality, but also social equality across the income bands in our country. In Sweden and other Nordic countries, we see the benefits of the argument she is making to all in society, compared with more unequal societies and the disadvantages that follow on from that.

[Mrs Spelman]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and he has cited the Scandinavian countries that demonstrate best practice. Sadly, so much of the riskiest, lowest paid work in the world is performed by women, compounding the disadvantages they suffer from, and that is what UN Women has sought to tackle. Evidence from a range of countries shows that increasing the share of household income controlled by women changes spending in ways that benefit their children disproportionately. There are wide-ranging benefits for societies in empowering women economically. In the global economic context, women are still seriously disadvantaged in the workplace, and they have lower participation rates and higher rates of unemployment. They also have a greater propensity to be in vulnerable types of work. A wage gap still exists and women are over-represented in lower-paid jobs. The situation is bleakest of all in the developing world, where poverty is still rife.

I pay tribute to the work of the Department for International Development and its recognition that we must help the needs of women more. The UK has made a significant achievement in reaching the target of 0.7% of gross national income for aid. That money is spent on a wide range of areas, but one of DFID’s key priorities is to improve the lives of girls and women in the world’s poorest countries. Before you entered the Chamber, Mr Deputy Speaker, Mr Speaker invited us to make a few suggestions about how we might dilute the preponderance of male portraiture in politics that adorns the walls of the Houses of Parliament at both ends. To add to the gradually increasing list, I suggest that we consider former International Development Secretaries such as Baroness Chalker, who became so well known for what she had done for the world’s poorest people that she enjoyed the lovely nickname of “Mama Africa”. No doubt in due course the Secretary of State for International Development, my right hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening), will find her place among the political portraits.

Let me return to the serious subject of what DFID is doing to address the needs of girls and women, which it states clearly lies at the heart of everything it does. We must stop poverty before it starts, because a girl starts at a disadvantage even before she is born. Much has already been achieved. DFID’s actions have helped 2.3 million women to get jobs and 18 million women to use financial services such as bank accounts and insurance. It has helped 4.5 million women to own and use land by supporting reforms to land and inheritance rights. Those things begin to reduce the serious disadvantages from which women suffer. The work of UN Women on economic empowerment includes improving access to jobs for women, reducing wage disparities, and helping women to accumulate economic assets and increase their influence on institutions that govern their lives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jessica Lee]

I entirely agree. One of my earliest memories of watching current affairs programmes is of watching programmes about the miners’ strike and, before that, the Falklands war. I remember asking at home, “Who is this person?”, and being amazed and impressed that we had a woman Prime Minister.

As for the message that we should convey, it is true that we need longevity in the House, but I think it a great idea to tell women who may be thinking about becoming Members of Parliament but do not want to be in the House of Commons for ever, that that is fabulous too. We need to support the choices that women make, or want to make, so that they can achieve the goals that they want to achieve, while juggling all their other responsibilities.

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. Both it and today’s debate are about closing the gaps in society. At the root of these gaps are economic gaps between men and women. That is part of the equality agenda, too, as I mentioned earlier. The gaps between the richest and the poorest are reflected in male-female issues, and she is highlighting very well the role models who are helping to change the situation, particularly in her own constituency. These are the people who lead, and others do follow. I congratulate her on her speech.

[Jessica Lee]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments. There has been progress. This is not a party political speech, and we have made huge steps in this Parliament towards having more women in the workplace and closing that gap, and taking more women out of tax entirely. A high proportion of the millions of people who are now out of tax are women. These things are important in giving women choices about their lives and they help them to make decisions for themselves and their family.

Today is international women’s day and others have spoken with far more insight and experience than I have about the issues on the international agenda. For my part, in the course of this Parliament I have had the opportunity, through the Conservative party, to go to Kenya and work with women politicians there, to deliver training on democracy and modern social media campaigning skills for elections, although I am sure I learned far more from them than they ever learned from me. That group of motivated, intelligent, dedicated women politicians was extremely formidable and capable. I felt very united with women in another part of the world who felt the same way: they wanted to get on and get things done. That is the key to being passionate about public service.

I am looking forward to celebrating international women’s day and I feel that my service as an MP has enriched me in celebrating it. I believe I have more knowledge and am far better informed, motivated and committed to fighting the corner for women across the globe as we celebrate this very important day.

SportsDirect (USC Dundonald)

Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

It is good to see you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone, and the Minister in her place. Of course, Mr Hollobone, you and I served in the same police force for 10 years, and I think that you still serve in the police, so it is good to see you here—after this debate, we might need your services.

I would like to make a few remarks by way of background to the reason why I asked for the debate. This year is the celebration of the 800th anniversary of the sealing of Magna Carta, one provision of which was that no free man should unreasonably be deprived of his livelihood. I am speaking on behalf of 245 workers in my constituency who question whether they are treated as free men and women.

USC is a clothing distribution company providing goods to retail distribution outlets. It opened in 1989 in Edinburgh. The company was worth £43 million by 2004, when it was purchased by Sir Tom Hunter, a constituent of mine, but it went into administration in 2008, after which 43 of the 58 stores were bought by Sir Tom. That happened through something called pre-packaged administration, whereby a deal is struck to sell parts of the business before it is put into administration, minimising losses and cherry-picking the most profitable part of the business. At the time, MPs, through the Commons Select Committee on Business and Enterprise, raised serious concerns about that practice. In particular, the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Sir Peter Luff) said:

“The principle of administration is sound but you’ve got to make sure that the administration process is working in a way that doesn’t disadvantage people and impose other costs on the economy”.

In 2011, SportsDirect bought 80% of USC, and it completed the purchase of the remaining 20% in 2012. In 2013, SportsDirect bought the company Republic—more of that later—out of administration and merged it with USC. USC’s headquarters have long been in Dundonald in central Ayrshire. On 28 December last year, 245 people —79 permanent employees and 166 agency or zero- hours contract workers—were employed at the Dundonald site.

On Wednesday 7 January, senior managers arrived at the site early in the morning and informed staff that the business was not making money and was going into administration, and that all the stock would be removed to SportsDirect’s central depot in Shirebrook. There then followed a pantomime: staff were not told that they were being made redundant and were asked, would you believe, to assist with the removal of the goods. I am told that some 100 journeys were made by heavy goods vehicles between then and when the process was completed, on Sunday 11 January.

It is not clear whether USC/SportsDirect’s actions were initiated by the companies themselves or as a result of creditors, a clothing company called Diesel, seeking a winding-up order because of unpaid bills, to which USC/SportsDirect responded by moving the company towards administration, presumably resulting in Diesel joining the list of creditors that would have to wait for payment. I have heard it said that there was a one-week delay in the court process, which I am told means that the timetable followed by the company is even further out of kilter with what staff were told at the time. I seek clarification from the Minister on that point.

No information was given to staff about the future of Dundonald and their jobs until Wednesday 14 January, when Philip Norvell from Gallaghers dismissed all the staff, telling them that they would not receive any money at all from SportsDirect and that anything owed to them would have to be claimed from the Government via the administrator.

On Friday 16 January, Republic, a wholly-owned subsidiary company of SportsDirect, bought the USC business, apart from the Dundonald warehouse and operation, from the administrators. At the same time, billionaire Mike Ashley is well known for his love of football—he owns Newcastle United—and his company, the very same SportsDirect, has just bought a 26% stake in Rangers Retail Ltd, in return for £10 million of credit, adding to his previous 49% stake and making a total of 75%. Rangers football club gets a very small percentage of the profits from that retail activity. The worrying thing is that that is very much the pattern that he adopted in buying USC: he built up a majority stake in stages before finally assuming control of the company.

Of course, there are rules governing the ownership of football clubs, especially as there have been some notorious multiple owners such as the pensions robber Robert Maxwell. There must be a question whether Ashley’s activities are a precursor to a greater involvement in Rangers football club itself. Is it right for an individual to have a serious financial stake in more than one side? Is this man more than just a shareholder? Has he become the banker of the club?

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman feel, as I do, that the behaviour of Mike Ashley is damaging to him, and that the contrast between his wealth and the way the workers were treated is appalling?

[Mr Donohoe]

I am coming to that, but he does not care a damn. That is clear, given what I am about to say.

The USC Dundonald situation is a murky affair. It leaves unanswered a lot of questions about the way some businesses are allowed to operate. For instance, did Diesel seek a winding-up notice on USC as a result of unpaid bills, as claimed in some reports? That is an answer that I need this afternoon. If so, what alternative courses of action were considered by SportsDirect—such as, for example, paying the bill to its loyal workers at Dundonald? Was USC/SportsDirect’s action in seeking administration a response to the claim made by Diesel or was it initiated by the company separately? Was there a delay in the timetable for granting administration and, if so, what was the impact on the work force and the potential timetables for redundancy and required consultation on both redundancy and business plans? Was that brought to the notice of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills? What will the cost to the public purse be of supporting the 245 people who are out of work without back pay, holiday or redundancy payments and who have bonuses of as much as £12,000 outstanding?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Swinson]

This case raises many questions. We are making several changes to insolvency law, and particularly to the pre-pack regime, where there are particular concerns. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that I have some familiarity with Glasgow Rangers—indeed, Murray park, their training ground, is in my constituency. I confess that I am not a football fan, but my late grandfather was a very proud and longstanding season ticket holder and supporter of Rangers. He enjoyed many trips to matches on the supporters’ bus.

We all have to think about the context. USC was not just a small company on its own; it was just one part of a large retail group. The events are particularly concerning in that context.

[Mr MacNeil]

Given what the Minister is saying, does she feel that USC, and perhaps Mike Ashley, too, have been guilty of using loopholes to get round certain situations and to create part of these problems quite deliberately? Could employment law be tightened so that workers are not victims, as they have been in this case?

[Jo Swinson]

There are a couple of different issues within that question. We will need to wait to see the specific facts that come out of the investigation. Obviously, the administrators will provide information to the Insolvency Service, and they have to file a report within six months, although the general practice is to file such reports much more quickly. Indeed, we will be shortening that time to three months.

On whether there are loopholes, action has been taken on the pre-packs issue, which I will address in a moment. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that employment law is not negotiable. Employment law is not something that is optional or that a company can decide to take or leave; it is the law, and it needs to be followed. Enforcement is particularly important. A range of issues have been raised, including some of the issues surrounding zero-hours contracts, which I will also address.

One of the key questions is why USC, which was wholly owned by SportsDirect, was allowed to reach the point at which its key suppliers and landlords were not just threatening but taking enforcement action. SportsDirect purchased USC’s business through another company, Republic. We have been told that USC’s key suppliers have been left out of pocket, so it seems odd that they would continue to supply Republic. There are, therefore, a lot of unanswered questions.

The law is clear that employees should be consulted where 20 or more people are being made redundant at the same establishment, and it can be a criminal offence to fail to notify the Secretary of State of proposed redundancies. Tribunals can make protective awards where employees are not properly consulted.

Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill

Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman hit the nail on the head when he called this a matter of fairness. Whether it is zero-hours contracts, the minimum wage or, as we saw on “Dispatches” last night, the fact that the 3,000 top earners in the UK earn as much as the bottom 9 million, we are talking about the abuse of economic muscle. My concern is that the contract models used in England are rolling into Scotland, meaning that publicans and licensees are being hit hard in Scotland. Will he expand on that a little?

National Minimum Wage

Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Brown]

Yes, I think that it is about a step change. We need to recognise that we should do whatever we can to increase the quality of life and lessen the impact of the cost of living on households. My local authority will be looking long and hard at that issue and imploring the businesses it offers contracts to—we know that we cannot demand it—to pay a living wage.

In 1997, we were told that we would lose millions of pounds as a result of a national minimum wage, but my party had clearly done our homework while in opposition, because the figures showed that when we give £1 million to the lowest-paid people in any community, they will go out and spend it, which creates 35 to 40 jobs in the community. That is what we saw. Some people in my area saw businesses shedding jobs, because the type of work they were doing was coming to the end of its life, and they could not understand why unemployment levels were still low. Unemployment was falling simply because we were putting money into the local economy.

I will return to a point that was made when we were discussing the benefits increase earlier this year. The figures clearly show that freezing benefits for the lowest-paid people over a three-year period took £6 billion out of the local economy. Giving some of the poorest paid extra money stimulates the local economy.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a good speech. I agree with his point about the economic multiplier effect of a minimum wage, and indeed of increasing benefits. The economist Paul Krugman makes the economic argument that increasing benefits adds to the economy by creating demand among the people who are likely to spend.

[Mr Brown]

Absolutely. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) said earlier, low-paid workers do not salt the money away but go out and spend it, and that is what we need. I honestly believe that that is where the coalition Government, to a certain extent, have failed. They have taken money away from some of the poorest communities and households, and there is no doubt that if we had left money in their hands, it would have been spent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whiteford]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, but in fact the Government have not gone nearly far enough, because inequality in this country is growing, not reducing. There have been vast increases in income at the top end of the income spectrum, while increasing pressure is being put on people at the lower and middle parts of the spectrum. The gap between the richest and poorest in our society is widening and that is not in any way sustainable.

It is important to understand that if the minimum wage were linked to inflation, it would have a much better chance of keeping pace with the actual cost of living. That would help avoid the current situation, whereby the minimum wage is well below the cost of living and forces people to be dependent on in-work benefits. It would also help address Labour’s prescriptive proposal, which limits us to the increases on the table without knowing what the economy is going to do between now and 2020. Anyone with a crystal ball would be well advised to be cautious in their predictions.

Yesterday and earlier today the House discussed the promise of extensive new powers for the Scottish Parliament, which are now being considered by the Smith commission. The minimum wage is a prime example of a policy that I would like to see devolved, and I am pleased that the Scottish National party’s submission to the Smith commission has set out the benefits of that, particularly the ability to link the minimum wage to inflation, which would immediately improve the position of low-paid workers and, over time, reduce reliance on in-work benefits.

The Scottish Government’s expert group on welfare reform has also considered the issue and recommended that the minimum wage should begin to rise, in phased stages, to the level of the living wage. Like others who have spoken, however, I do not think it is possible to divorce the issue of the minimum wage from the wider tax and benefits system.

Given that a very high proportion of people in low-paid work are in receipt of in-work benefits, we need to look at the design of the welfare system. One of the greatest failures of the UK’s welfare model has been the disincentives it has created for part-time workers in particular to increase their working hours, because of clear financial disadvantages and risks associated with doing so. For instance, for a couple with children and one parent in work, increasing working hours from 50% to full-time work results in 82% of the extra earned income being lost through tax and loss of benefits, which radically undermines the perception of work as a route out of poverty. A redesigned model would have the potential to address those high withdrawal rates and tackle the existing disincentives so that lower-income households could keep a greater proportion of the increases in earned income.

I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown). The people who are getting the biggest and fullest benefit from changes to the tax system and the lowest rate of tax are those on the highest incomes. The changes are benefiting those at the top end of the income spectrum and having a fairly marginal impact on those at the lower end, because what they gain in tax they lose in benefit. The net impact in many cases has been to reduce their income, particularly in relation to average income in the country as a whole.

A redesigned model would be especially important for families and those with dependent children. In a week when we have seen very sharp increases in child poverty—this has been referred to by the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway—it is really important to make the point that most of the children in poverty in Scotland are children in working families. They are the children of working parents, and the changes to the tax and benefits system have pushed them into an even harder position than they were in previously. They have been hitting the headlines for all the wrong reasons. I want to challenge the view that having one in five children living in poverty is inevitable, because that is simply not acceptable. We could change that if we put our minds to it. We need to get our priorities straight.

When the minimum wage was introduced in the 1990s, I remember fears of Armageddon being expressed from some quarters and apocalyptic warnings that jobs would be lost and that the economy would go to hell in a handcart. Of course, that is not what happened, because when people had a bit more money in their pockets they spent it. The higher costs to businesses, which we all take seriously, were more than outweighed in economic terms by the benefits to businesses, including job creation, and in social terms by the huge benefits and improvements to the standard of living for people in low-income households.

There are also potential fiscal benefits from an improved minimum wage in savings to the benefits bill, and potential for increased tax receipts. We need to recognise that and not pretend that it is simply a cost. It is actually a way of getting people into work and improving the standard of living for many people throughout our society—not just the people in those jobs, but those who depend on them, such as their children and other dependants.

[Mr MacNeil]

My hon. Friend is making a fine speech. What she is saying could be summed up by the economists Krugman and Stieglitz, who say that one person’s spending is another person’s earning. When we put money in people’s pockets, it has a very good economic effect all around.

[Dr Whiteford]

My hon. Friend makes a valuable point.

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

Teaching Quality

Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I will name him in due course.

The motion states:

“That this House believes that no school system can surpass the quality of its teachers; and therefore resolves”.

My friend said:

“A clause following a semi-colon needs an expressly stated subject (as opposed to a merely ‘understood’ one, just as a complete sentence does. In other words, either the semi-colon must be replaced by a comma or the clause after it must be changed to something like ‘and that this house therefore resolves’ or ‘and that it therefore resolves’. As it stands, the construction is ungrammatical.”

He went on to the next phrase, which refers to

“all teachers in all state-funded schools”

and stated that

“one or other of the two ‘alls’ is redundant and should be deleted”.

He then looked at the phrase

“should be qualified or working towards Qualified Teacher Status”.

He acknowledged that it was

“better, because less awkward-looking”,

but suggested that “should” as well as “be” should be at the beginning of each of the clauses.

He then pointed out that the reference to “ongoing continuing professional development” was tautologous, because continuing professional development is, by definition, ongoing. He also noted that the claim that that was

“in order to support them to excel in the classroom”

was an example of “Shocking grammar.” One cannot support someone to do something—following the word “support” with an infinitive. Rather, one supports someone in his or her attempt to do something. He went on in a similar vein and concluded: “Regrettably, this motion is, in total, a shocking piece of English.”

The reason I mention that is that I have enormous respect and affection for the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt). He and I are fans of both George Eliot and George Orwell. George Orwell wrote that

“the fight against bad English is not frivolous and is not the exclusive concern of professional writers”

because

“the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts… Political language”—

of the kind we see in the Opposition’s motion—

“is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

Sadly, that is what the Opposition’s case today is—pure wind without solidity.

The Opposition appear to be arguing that there is some sort of crisis in teaching, specifically recruitment to teaching, but the number of graduates with top degrees is up. Almost three quarters of graduates starting teacher training in this academic year have a first-class or 2:1 degree. That is the highest quality of graduates starting teacher training since records began. It is also the case that the number entering the teaching profession from top universities is up. Some 14% of graduates leaving Oxford in the past three years have chosen teaching as their profession, making it the single most popular destination for students from that university.

The quality of teaching has never been better. Ofsted figures show that it has improved significantly since 2010. Under Labour, the percentage of teaching that was “good” or “outstanding” in primary schools was 69%, but recent figures show that it is now 79%. Under Labour, the percentage of teaching that was “good” or “outstanding” in secondary schools was 65%, but now it is 72%. That is significant improvement under this coalition Government.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

rose—

[Michael Gove]

I am delighted to give way to my old friend from Stornoway.

[Mr MacNeil]

The right hon. Gentleman laboured heavily on grammar. I would like to know whether, in the recesses of his mind, he sees grammar as something that is fixed for ever. Does he see grammar as being prescriptive or descriptive?

[Michael Gove]

That is probably the best intervention we have had for some time on the question of education, because it actually relates to what is taught. I believe that we need proper grammatical rules in order to ensure that words are used with precision. Like all bodies of knowledge, however, it evolves over time. There is no tension between recognising that there are certain grammatical rules and that they change, in the same way as there is no tension between recognising that there are certain literary works that should always be in the canon and that over time they change. For example, Macpherson’s “Ossian” is out of the canon, but Burns will always be in.