Schools That Work For Everyone

Chris Philp Excerpts

Monday 14th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Damian Hinds]

My hon. Friend is right that we must redouble efforts at all stages. She is also right to identify what happens in higher education admission at age 18. The attainment gap has been narrowed by 10% at secondary and primary school, and we are redoubling efforts in the early years. Making sure we have good provision of more good school places is certainly part of that effort.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

As a south London grammar school boy, I welcome this announcement. Does the Secretary of State agree that all the evidence suggests that children from deprived backgrounds do better in grammar schools than in non-grammar schools, and that grammar schools are massively oversubscribed, and therefore that allowing them to expand meets parent choice? Does he also agree that no one is suggesting returning to the 1950s, and that today’s announcement represents only 0.1% of education spending, so nobody should get too exercised about it?

[Damian Hinds]

My hon. Friend rightly identifies the importance of diversity and choice in our system. He is also right to remind us that although these are important announcements, in the scheme of things the vast majority of new places created in secondary schools are of course going to be for comprehensive-intake schools, and having this variety in our schools is a great benefit to our system.

Budget Resolutions

Chris Philp Excerpts

1st reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 14th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

I will come to the hon. Gentleman’s points about the cost-efficiency of free schools later in my speech.

Either the Prime Minister has made an announcement without the Chancellor actually funding it, or they are simply disguising yet another eye-watering overspend on their staggeringly inefficient free schools programme and pretending that it is new money for new places. That would not be much of a surprise. The National Audit Office has helpfully reminded the Chancellor and the Secretary of State:

“In 2010 the Department estimated that it would cost £900 million by March 2015 to open 315 schools.”

By March 2015, the Department had spent double that initial budget and not even managed to hit its target for new schools. The NAO found that the Department had already spent around £3.4 billion on the land alone for free schools and it was on course to be Britain’s largest land purchaser, even before this Budget sank yet more money in. The NAO also showed that new places in free schools were far more expensive than those in conventional schools. Will the Minister tell the House and the British people how much money her Department will actually spend on delivering these new free schools, and will she guarantee that they will open in places where there is a clear need for spaces?

The Chancellor pledged £216 million for every other school over a three-year period, as the Secretary of State mentioned in her speech, but the NAO has found that, as the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) said, £6.7 billion is necessary just to return all existing schools to a satisfactory condition. The NAO also found that 85% of schools that applied to the priority schools building programme were rejected in the last round, and that that investment was cheaper than the free schools programme.

Of course, we know why the Chancellor focused on free schools despite the cost—because it

“will enable the creation of new selective free schools.”

It was the former Education Secretary who said that he had “had enough of experts”, but not even he tried to bring back grammar schools, let alone pretend that it was a policy for social mobility.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Angela Rayner]

I am not giving way. Only one in every 25 pupils at a grammar school is eligible for free school meals, while one in every eight pupils at grammar schools previously attended an independent school. Even among the highest-achieving 20% of pupils, those from the most affluent backgrounds are 45% more likely to get into a grammar school than those from the most disadvantaged. Of course, the Government have suggested —again, not to this House, but in leaks to the press—that they intend to take action to change that in existing grammar schools; that has not gone down very well on the Conservative Back Benches. Given that the Government have been happy to jump the gun on the rest of their consultation, perhaps the Secretary of State could be as forthcoming to the House about those plans as she was to the press?

[Chris Philp]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Angela Rayner]

The Secretary of State has spent a huge amount of time speaking and I have a lot of Back Benchers who want to speak, so I am going to carry on.

The Chancellor announced one other measure in the Budget to address the issue: £5 million a year for the Government’s cash-for-cabs scheme, bussing children to grammar schools. Of course, the Chancellor forgot to mention that the Government had just cut £6 million out of the schools transport budget for every other child. Those cuts left no statutory provision for disabled 16 to 18-year-olds and others, who were forced to change school. They are paying the taxi tax so that a handful of pupils can be ferried up to 15 miles to the nearest grammar school by cab, at a cost of thousands of pounds each. Apparently, the comprehensive school bus is out, and the grammar school Uber is in. That is all to give the Government a fig leaf of social mobility. The Chancellor said:

“We are committed to that programme because we understand that choice is the key to excellence in education”.—[Official Report, 8 March 2017; Vol. 622, c. 818.]

I remind the Government that good teaching, school leadership, proper funding, the right curriculum and many other things are also key to that excellence.

It is also a rather obvious point that the Government’s proposed system is not one in which parents or pupils choose the school; instead, the schools choose the pupils. Parents are unlikely to have the choice they have been promised on childcare either. The Chancellor told the House that

“from September, working parents with three and four-year-olds will get their free childcare entitlement doubled to 30 hours a week.”—[Official Report, 8 March 2017; Vol. 622, c. 816.]

But the Secretary of State has already admitted in written answers that only a small minority of the parents receiving 15 hours will be eligible for the 30 hours. Fewer than 400,000 families will qualify, despite the Government’s promise at the last election that more than 600,000 would benefit.

The Chancellor’s plans for adult education are no closer to reality. He announced £40 million to trial new ways of delivering adult education and lifelong learning, but his own Government have cut the adult skills budget by 32% since 2010, taking out more than £1 billion. I know that the Chancellor’s aides have referred to their neighbours in No. 10 as “economically illiterate”, but surely even they realise the absurdity of trying to reverse the damage caused by £1 billion of cuts with £40 million in trials.

It is a similar story with the £500 million a year to deliver the new T-levels. That amount of new investment would be welcome—after all, further education budgets were cut by 7% in the last Parliament, and the Institute for Fiscal Studies found that between 2010 and 2020, funding per pupil in further education would be cut by 13%—but the briefing lines do not quite match the Budget lines. The Red Book shows that in 2018-19 the new funding will be only £60 million. Even by 2021-22, the new funding will not have risen to the promised half a billion a year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

It gives me some pleasure to follow the shadow Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner).

Let me start by welcoming the Budget and congratulating the Secretary of State on her speech. I am delighted that she has managed to secure protection for the schools budget, which will continue to grow in real terms, and I congratulate the Chief Secretary on facilitating that. I also welcome the national funding formula, which the Secretary of State for Education has been working on with a forensic attention to detail. It will ensure that funding follows need, rather than being an accident of postcode. Croydon, the borough I represent, has historically been underfunded. We will now see that injustice corrected, so I congratulate the Secretary of State on her work and welcome the national funding formula.

The shadow Secretary of State for Education gave us a blizzard of statistics. I wanted to intervene on her to say that the most important statistic on education is this: 1.8 million more children are being educated in good or outstanding schools than in 2010. The hon. Lady can quote all the sums she likes, but the fact remains that the Government are delivering a better education for more children than ever before. Conservative Members are proud of our Government, and our free school and academy programme, and I am delighted that the Government are expanding it.

I was pleased that the Chief Secretary, the Chancellor and the Education Secretary found an additional £1.035 billion over the next five years—up until 2021-22—to fund further new schools. New schools give choice to parents and, as the statistics I quoted show, they encourage higher standards. Some of those schools might well be new grammar schools, which the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne criticised. I should declare to the House that I am a grammar school boy. I know from my experience in a south London grammar school that such schools help children from ordinary backgrounds to fulfil their potential. All the studies show that children from ordinary backgrounds who go to grammar schools do a great deal better than those who go to other schools.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) did not give way to my hon. Friend, although she did give way to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), many of whose constituents attend a grammar school in my constituency. The question she failed to answer was this: why, since the abolition of grammar schools, has there been a catastrophic fall in social mobility in the most deprived areas?

[Chris Philp]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. Grammar schools can and should be an engine for social mobility. The Government’s White Paper and the Education Secretary’s proposals include new measures to ensure that grammar schools take on a higher proportion of pupils on free school meals. There is a very successful case study: the King Edward VI grammar schools in Birmingham. They have taken a number of steps, including offering outreach to local primary schools in deprived areas, free tuition for their tests, and bursaries to fund school uniforms and travel. Together, they have increased the grammar schools’ free school meal intake from 3%, which is a very low figure, to about 22%. This shows that the Education Secretary’s proposals work in practice, and I strongly welcome them.

[George Kerevan]

In the interests of joined-up thinking, may I ask what proportion of qualifications the new grammar schools will give over to T-levels?

[Chris Philp]

It is up to individual schools to set their own individual curriculums, and to offer their pupils and parents a choice. That is what localism means. Of course grammar schools, by their nature, tend to be more academic in flavour—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”] Well, that is what a grammar school is—that should hardly be a surprise to Opposition Members. Other kinds of school have a more technical specialisation. Diversity of provision, choice for parents and variety in our system are signs of success, which Conservative Members celebrate.

Let me turn to other measures in the Budget, starting with business rates. Like several hon. Members, I was concerned about the effect of the business rates revaluation on smaller businesses. The town of Purley in my constituency was particularly affected by some quite significant upward revaluations. In that context, it is welcome that the Budget announced £435 million of discretionary relief to help small businesses in towns such as Purley. I would suggest, particularly to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, that it might be worth reconsidering the profiling of that £435 million over time. The lion’s share of that money comes in the first two years: £180 million in 2017-18; and £85 million in 2018-19. That is welcome, but the transitional relief—the upward caps on rates increases—for small businesses is 5% in 2017-18, and 7.5% in 2018-19, so most small businesses will not feel too much of an effect in the next two years. It is really in three, four and five years’ time that increases will be most powerfully felt. Would the Chief Secretary consider changing the profile of that money so that, instead of being front-loaded in the next one or two years, it can be back-loaded into years 3 and 4, when the effects of the business rate increases will be felt most heavily? The total amount of money would remain the same—£435 million—but the profile would be shifted over time better to match the effect of the business rates increases.

I offer a second thought on transitional relief for the future, which again relates to the upward and downward caps. Bills have been sent out for 2017-18. There is an upward cap of 5% for small businesses, so no small business will face an increase of more than 5%, and there is a downward cap for large businesses of 4.1%, so no large business gets a decrease greater than 4.1%. I accept that that is now fixed.

Looking into the future, however, and particularly to 2019-20 and 2020-21, I wonder whether the autumn statement might consider fine tuning those upward and downward caps so that the largest businesses, such as the big four supermarkets, have a lower or even a zero further downward cap, so that they get no further decreases beyond next year’s decrease. That could fund a more generous upward cap for the smallest businesses, meaning that the upward cap of 10% to 15% in 2019-20 and 2020-21 could be reduced. This approach would be fiscally neutral. It would not affect arrangements for the coming financial year, which I accept are fully set in stone, but it would help small businesses in three or four years’ time, including businesses in Purley. I have noticed that the cumulative upward cap for such small businesses over the five-year period accumulates to 64.2%, which represents quite a high cap. If we could find a way of softening the blow, it would be very welcome indeed.

The Chancellor’s Budget statement also touched on pollution, particularly due to diesel cars. My constituency, like all London constituencies, is profoundly affected by this problem. The Chancellor mentioned that a plan would be delivered over the summer, in response to the European Union court case, and that fiscal measures would be introduced in the autumn Budget.

I have significant reservations about Sadiq Khan’s proposed diesel scrappage scheme, which would cost £515 million over two years in London. The cost of such a scheme nationally would be £3.5 billion a year over two years, which would be unaffordable and would, in fact, simply cause one set of diesel cars to be replaced by another. I do not support the diesel scrappage scheme proposed by the Mayor of London, but one fiscal measure that the Government might consider, bearing in mind that diesel cars now burn 10 million tonnes of fuel a year—a three times increase over the last 10 years —is introducing a significantly increased registration tax for new diesel cars. I am talking about cars, not vans and lorries, because I accept that including them would have an impact on business. That approach would help to deter people from buying new diesel cars, which now make up about half of all new car purchases in this country. Such a measure would have no retrospective effect on people who have already bought a diesel car, but it would encourage people to switch away from diesel cars, which would do a great deal to help to ease pollution problems in cities such as London in the months and years ahead.

I see that I am rapidly approaching the time limit, so let me conclude—[Interruption.] I am glad I have said something that is popular among Opposition Members. I welcome the Budget, which continues the Government’s record of job creation and growth. I congratulate the Education Secretary and the Chief Secretary again on protecting and growing education funding, and on committing to fund more excellent schools in our country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh); he made a thoughtful and forward-looking speech, although I have to say that I could not disagree with him more on the matters of insurance-based payments to fund our NHS and selective education; those are the wrong approaches for this country to take.

I want to mention three key points. The first is the position of the national debt. This year’s “Economic and fiscal outlook” document from the Office for Budget Responsibility states that

“the fiscal mandate has targeted different measures of the deficit at different horizons”,

which is a beautifully diplomatic way of saying that the Government keep moving the goalposts and still fail to score the goal. The OBR goes on to state that

“the Government does not appear to be on track to meet its stated fiscal objective to ‘return the public finances to balance at the earliest possible date in the next Parliament’.”

So the Government have failed on the deficit, but they are failing catastrophically on the debt.

In 2010, the Government expected public sector net debt to be falling as a share of GDP; it was forecast to reach a high of 70.3% in 2013-14, falling to 67.4% by 2015-16. However, in every single year that the Tories have been in No. 11 net debt has risen in actual and relative terms, reaching 83.7% of GDP last year, and it is going to rise through this Parliament, with the Red Book forecasting that it will reach 88.9% this year.

When the coalition took office, public sector net debt was £771 billion. This year it reached £1.6 trillion, and the Red Book forecasts it is to rise again throughout this Parliament to £1.9 trillion. This is my first key point: in little over a decade, the Tories will have increased public sector debt by 146%, with it rising by over £1 trillion.

In his statement, the Chancellor said that they

“will not saddle our children with ever-increasing debts.”—[Official Report, 8 March 2017; Vol. 622, c. 811.]

However, when Tory Chancellors have increased the public debt by almost 150% in a decade, saddling our children with ever-increasing debts seems to be precisely what this Government are doing.

[Chris Philp]

Will the hon. Gentleman join me in welcoming the fact that the deficit has gone down from 11% of GDP when Labour left office to 3% of GDP today?

[Mr Wright]

But the public sector debt is almost touching £2 trillion. The hon. Gentleman cannot be satisfied with that situation when the whole nature of Tory Governments since 2010 has been not only to reduce the deficit, but also to get the debt down to manageable proportions.

On that point, having debt on a low and falling proportion of GDP provides some scope to absorb the impact of any future economic shock. That was the case with the Labour Government in the run-up to 2008, and in many respects it was the case with the Thatcher Government in 1988, ’89 and ’90, to hit the recession of the early 1990s. But this Government are failing to do the same thing: we will hit any economic turbulence or downturn with public sector debt being about 80% to 85% of GDP. That does not give us the flexibility to be able to respond and help firms and families in a robust and strong way.

The second point I want to make is about the nature of the economic recovery. Seven years ago a Tory Chancellor’s first Budget for 13 years stated that the British economy had become unbalanced, too reliant on growth and, as the 2010 Red Book said,

“driven by the accumulation of unsustainable levels of private sector debt and rising public sector debt.”

Growth was confined to a limited number of sectors and regions. I have mentioned public sector debt, and it is true to say that the British economy has performed well; the UK was the fastest-growing G7 economy last year. However, if we scratch beneath the surface, it is questionable precisely who is benefiting from that growth and what sort of growth we are having. Of course, growth is growth, and it has to be welcomed, but the British economy seems to be reverting to type, which could leave us vulnerable to long-term challenges and mean that we fail to take advantage of great opportunities.

Who is benefiting from the growth? The UK has been the only big advanced economy in which wages have contracted while the economy has expanded. Households are facing a period of 15 years in which average real wage growth simply does not happen. Average earnings in real terms are expected to be the same in 2022 as they were in 2007. Such a long period of wage stagnation is unprecedented since before the industrial revolution. Yet despite the lack of wage growth, household consumption is powering the economy, as the hon. Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan) mentioned in his powerful contribution. This has led to an expansion in the dominant services sector, but if consumption growth is running faster than wage growth, it must mean that people are either reducing their savings or increasing their borrowing.

The Governor of the Bank of England said in a speech in January that

“the UK expansion is increasingly consumption-led. Evidence from the past quarter century across a range of countries suggests episodes of consumption-led growth tends to be both slower and less durable.”

The household debt-to-income ratio has increased from 140.8% to 143.9% this year alone. These are worrying trends, and we are not seeing an increase in investment or an export-led recovery. Business investment has constantly undershot expectations, and there was a year-on-year fall in business investment of 1.5% last year. Despite the drop in sterling’s value against the dollar by about a fifth since 23 June, we have not seen the boom in exports that we might have expected. In fact, the trade deficit widened to £13.6 billion in the third quarter of 2016. That was due predominantly to a trade in goods deficit getting larger by £8.5 billion.

My third point is that we need a new model for the economy. To be fair to the Prime Minister, she said when she first came into No. 10 that she wanted to see an economy that worked for everyone, and that she wanted to see private sector reform to ensure that growth was rebalanced and reached all parts of the UK. However, that is not what we saw in last week’s Budget. The Government have referred to an industrial strategy as the path by which such growth could be achieved, yet the Chancellor failed to mention the term “industrial strategy” once in his financial statement, which demonstrates the buy-in from the Treasury to the concept. We talk about rebalancing across the regions, but as a north-eastern MP, I could find no reference whatever to the north in the Budget statement, let alone an assurance that we could have an economy that worked for everyone.

In our recent Select Committee report following our inquiry into the industrial strategy, we noted that the Government tend to operate in silos, and this Budget sadly reveals business as usual and more of the same. The Government intervene in the economy every single day, through taxes and regulations, as the Red Book shows. They can do that in an ad hoc, piecemeal way, or they can do it as part of a co-ordinated, strategic purpose. Sadly, the Budget seems to stress the former. It is true that the industrial strategy talks about skills as being essential, and the Chancellor’s announcement on technical education is welcome, but we will not see the fruits of those proposals until 2020-21. The industrial strategy also talks about ensuring that we are one of the most competitive places in the world to start and grow a business, yet the national insurance contributions debacle will result in a tax on enterprise, on ambition and on personal risk-taking by entrepreneurs.

The Committee would have liked to see a more ambitious, mission-based approach in which the Government, working with business, set a long-term direction for the economy in the pursuit of tackling global and national challenges. Where in the Budget was the vision on decarbonisation? Where in the Budget was the ambition to be the leading economy to exploit the fourth industrial revolution? Sadly, we got the same short-term tinkering, which will not address issues such as low productivity, skills deficiencies and massive regional imbalances. If the Prime Minister is serious about an economy that works for everyone, we need to see a step change in the way the economy works. An industrial strategy could be the means by which we achieve that but, sadly, in this Budget we saw business as usual.

Draft Coasting Schools (England) Regulations 2016

Chris Philp Excerpts

Wednesday 30th November 2016 General Committees

[Mike Kane]

I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s intervention, but with 20 years of governance experience, 10 years as a practising teacher and eight years on a local education authority, I am not going to take any lectures about our commitment to education.

At key stage 2, half of MATs are performing below average for adding value, and more than a third are below average for improvement in adding value. Those statistics need to be out there. The main finding is that on all value added measures, more MATs are performing at the extremes of significantly above or significantly below average than are performing close to the average. That is true for both key stage 2 and key stage 4. Performance levels vary widely among MATs.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

May I draw the shadow Minister’s attention to the answer to the question raised by the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath? Some 1.4 million more children are in good or outstanding schools now than before. Does the shadow Minister’s analysis of multi-academy trusts and free schools account for a school’s performance before it was academised? In my constituency—I suspect that this situation is similar to that in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes—the schools that were taken over and academised were failing schools that are now succeeding.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

Speech!

Education and Social Mobility

Chris Philp Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

I find myself agreeing with the former Prime Minister, who was elected to make those contributions to the debate. That was the platform and the manifesto on which the Conservative Government stood, which they are currently rejecting.

I know from personal experience, as will parents from across this Chamber, the incredible impact that childcare can have, not just on children and their education, but on entire families. Leaving school at 16, with no qualifications and a newborn son, Labour’s Sure Start centres helped me to learn to be a better parent to my son. I know that I would not be speaking in this House today without those programmes, and that they have helped to offer my son the opportunities I never had growing up.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

What would the hon. Lady say to parents in my constituency and in the rest of Croydon—where there are no grammar schools—who have to travel for miles and miles to an adjacent grammar school in either Sutton or Bromley? She is seeking to deny those parents choice, is she not?

[Angela Rayner]

I am seeking to ensure that every child has the best opportunities in life and a great start. I do not want the hon. Gentleman’s constituents to have to travel miles away from his constituency; I want them to have absolutely the best education possible, and selection does not provide that for every child.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carol Monaghan]

Absolutely. I actually think there was another flaw in the Secretary of State’s speech. Listening to her speaking in such glowing terms about grammar schools, I wondered why we do not just make every school a grammar. That would solve the problem.

Many secondary schools choose to set their pupils according to academic ability. However, the educational evidence for the benefits of setting is scant. Certainly when pupils are working on the same curricular content, the evidence is clear: mixed ability classes are far more successful in raising attainment. The most able pupils succeed in whatever class they are in. The least able pupils do a bit better in mixed ability. The massive advantage, however, is for the swathes of average attainers who, within a mixed ability class, have no ceiling placed on their ambitions. In fact, when the Government use one of their buzzwords, “aspiration”, it is indeed this large group of middle pupils who embody and can embrace that idea. Conversely, when decisions based on ability have been imposed on pupils, it sends out strong signals about what that particular group is expected to achieve. In other words, it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Rolling this out on a much larger scale, as is being considered with the return to grammar schools, means that we have young people who have had decisions made on their future attainment before they even have a chance to attain.

The damage that that does cannot be underestimated. To be told at age 11 that you are not good enough is an incredibly difficult thing to overcome. Despite the best efforts of teachers, that labelling is a blow to confidence and self-esteem that can remain throughout a person’s life.

[Chris Philp]

Given what the hon. Lady has just said, will she join me in welcoming the Green Paper’s proposal to allow for transfers into and out of selective schools at ages 14 and 16, as well as 11?

[Carol Monaghan]

I would welcome very little of the Green Paper. I do not agree with selective schooling.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

It is a particular pleasure for me to speak in this debate, having attended a south London grammar school myself. I can say from personal experience that I would not be here were it not for that grammar school, so I feel an obligation to other youngsters growing up in south London who are from ordinary backgrounds such as mine to speak up when the opportunity arises.

I echo many of the things said by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady), in particular by highlighting the terrible unfairness in the system. The only way to be sure of an outstanding education is often to pay for it, either by going private, or by buying a much more expensive house in the catchment area of a good school. It is a disgrace that the only way to be certain of an academically elite education today is by paying for it.

I want to respond to a question that the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), my colleague on the Treasury Committee, posed to the Secretary of State. He asked for evidence that children from ordinary backgrounds do better in grammar schools. He asked for one piece of evidence, but I will give him two. First, in areas where at least 10% of pupils are selected, the GCSE grades of free school meal kids are seven notches better than those of equivalent children in non-selective schools. That is a seven-grade boost. Secondly, white male children—I think the previous Secretary of State mentioned them—who go to grammar schools have a 30% higher chance of going to university than those who do not.

[Lucy Powell]

Parents and teachers following this debate will have heard a Government Member say that the only way to guarantee an excellent education is to pay for it. The hon. Gentleman is rubbishing our excellent education system. The fact of the matter is that, yes, many parents want to select their children’s education socially, but if we flip the issue and look at the situation for free school meal children, the hon. Gentleman will find that progress in the comprehensive system massively exceeds that in the private sector.

[Chris Philp]

It is clear in my area of Croydon that parents who want a particular kind of academic education have to travel out of the borough to either Bromley or Sutton because the kind of education that they want for their children is not available. That leads me on to my next point about parental choice. If parents want a particular kind of education for their children, it is not for this House to deny them that choice on ideological grounds. We should be enabling choice.

By the way, no Government Member is suggesting a return to the system under the Education Act 1944. No one is proposing the reintroduction of secondary moderns. We propose a diverse system with a whole range of schools with different specialisms. We already have many different kinds of academies and free schools, and grammar schools have a place in that diverse system along with other types of school. Parents can then exercise choice over which school works for them. It is clear that when free school meal children go to grammar schools, they do significantly better than if they do not.

[Wes Streeting]

I am grateful to my Treasury Committee colleague for giving way. Part of the explanation for his last point is that, given the very nature of academic selection, the higher-attaining pupils from the poorest backgrounds attend those schools. The evidence base as a whole shows that if a pupil from a deprived background goes to a grammar school, they are less likely to do as well as their better-off counterparts, and the impact on the system as a whole is not positive. That is why every leading educational expert says that this is a bad policy.

[Chris Philp]

I refer my Treasury Committee colleague to the Education Policy Institute report that was published in September—it is quite recent, so perhaps he has not had a chance to read it—that found that the seven-grade advantage adjusts for prior academic attainment. Therefore, with the same level of attainment, a child on free school meals does better in a grammar school than they would if they went to a non-grammar school.

I have heard two objections to grammar schools from Opposition Members. There are two reasonable objections that one might make, so it is only fair to acknowledge them and try to respond. The first objection is that only 3% of grammar school pupils are on free school meals, whereas the figure for the population as a whole is 13%. It is reasonable for Members on both sides of the House to draw attention to that deficiency and to question it, but my answer to that challenge is that, by being inventive and creative, it is possible to increase that percentage radically. There is a fantastic example from the Schools of King Edward VI in Birmingham, which has increased its free school meal intake from 3% or 4% up to more than 20%, which is above the national average. That has been achieved through a series of innovative measures, including active outreach to primary schools in deprived areas, free help with tests for children from deprived families—one problem is that middle-class parents pay for coaching for their children—and bursaries for parents who are worried about the costs of uniforms, musical instruments or extra travel. By doing those things, the group has transformed its free school meal intake.

[Nicky Morgan]

My hon. Friend will be aware of the evidence given by Rebecca Allen of Datalab to the Education Committee that shows the negative impact on other grammar schools in that local area: they have lost more of their free school meal children. I think he needs to argue for an increase in the overall number of free school meal children if he wants his policies to work.

[Chris Philp]

I am arguing that grammar schools should do outreach, like those in the King Edward VI group, and ensure that the figure increases from 3% so that children from deprived backgrounds can get in and genuinely do well, which is not happening as much as it should. Wallington County Grammar School in my next-door borough of Sutton uses a slightly lower test threshold for free school meal children and has dramatically increased its intake from that group. I was happy to read on page 25 of the Green Paper that a number of the things that have worked in schools such as Wallington and those in the King Edward VI group will be conditions when existing grammar schools expand or new grammar schools open. By attaching those conditions, the Government will address the reasonable concerns that have been raised by Members on both sides of the House.

The second objection, to which the former Secretary of State just alluded, is that non-selective schools do worse in selective areas because the selective schools have in some way creamed off the best pupils. There is no clear evidence for that. There are reports from both sides giving both points of view. In 2008, the Sutton Trust found no such effect; another study found an extremely marginal effect. We have already heard—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. We will not have sedentary interventions and the waving around of documents. It is simply not done in here.

[Chris Philp]

Thank you for defending me so valiantly, Madam Deputy Speaker.

We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West how Northern Ireland is an excellent case study of where the entire education system, not just grammar school pupils, has done well. In conclusion, with the reforms in the Green Paper, the system can work and help children from deprived backgrounds to fulfil their potential.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Kane]

I always like to debate with my constituency neighbour, and it was great to have him visit Sale Grammar School in my constituency just the other week. I regularly go to speak to the children there. The Government are currently nationalising and privatising the system at the same time. As the hon. Gentleman will remember from the debates in the mid-1990s, we would introduce a system of subsidiarity back into our education system, so it would be up to local people to decide; we would not have a nationalised system.

[Chris Philp]

rose—

[Mike Kane]

I need to make progress. [Interruption.] I have answered the question.

Ministers have provided no evidence of how extra grammar schools will increase the social mobility of our young people—an issue more pronounced in the midlands and the north, as the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) rightly pointed out. I could not agree more. Let me be clear: citing evidence about access to Russell Group universities is a complete red herring and a corrupt use of the statistics that fails to compare like with like. Let me provide some evidence instead, from the Government’s own chief inspector. Sir Michael Wilshaw has said that in Hackney the attainment gap between those eligible for free school meals and their colleagues is 14%. In Kent, which retains a selective system—I see the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) in her place—the gap is 34%. In Kent, just 27% of pupils eligible for free school meals get five good GCSEs, compared with 45% in London.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that

“those in selective areas who don’t pass the 11-plus do worse than they would have done in a comprehensive system”.

Research by the Education Policy Institute has shown that, once the data are controlled for prior performance, grammar schools do not actually improve results, even for students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

The issue of grammar schools has divided the Conservative party. Many senior MPs have come out against the plans. The Minister is currently having to work with an ex-Minister who did not want it and now has to work with a Secretary of State who does want it but is under orders from the Prime Minister; and the former Education Secretary, who spoke eloquently, does not believe in it. My constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady), whom I have just debated with, needs to remember that Trafford has an excellent primary school system. I taught many of his children, I will have him know, which is why he has such good results in his constituency—and the primary system is not selective.

Turning to social mobility, my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) said that this will be the first generation since the second world war to be less well off than their parents. The Government have failed to build an education system that provides opportunity for all. Under this Government, the system is mediocre and falling behind, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) pointed out. They are increasingly obsessed with structures rather than with what matters most—the quality of education for our young people.

We have seen scandal after scandal in our multi-academy trusts, and the Government cannot get to grips with the structures they are putting in place. There is no governance—no effective governance—in the system, as the Department for Education creaks under the strain. The Government are not tackling the key challenges facing our schools system—declining budgets and chronic shortages of teachers and places. They have failed to invest in our young people at every stage of their education. Schools are facing their first real-term cuts since the ’90s. Spending on further education has been cut time and again, while student debt continues to rise.

Government education policy has amounted to nothing more than a series of roadblocks to aspiration, opportunity and social mobility. The impact of those regressive policies is clear to all but the Government themselves. When Labour left office, 71% of state school students went on to university; last year, it fell to 62%, down from 66% the previous year. We Labour Members remain fully committed to ensuring that all our young people are given the opportunity to succeed on whatever educational path they choose, and that their opportunities are based only on what they aspire to—not on what they can afford. We will be fearless champions for every child, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) pointed out.

Figures published only last week by the National Association of Head Teachers showed that for the third consecutive year there is a real problem with recruitment across all roles—from teachers to senior leaders. Overall, a very high proportion—80%—of posts were difficult to recruit, while 62% of posts were filled only with a struggle and respondents were unable to recruit at all to an average of 17% of all posts. Recruitment difficulties for the main middle leadership roles in schools are pronounced. For posts carrying a teaching and learning responsibility or special educational needs co-ordinator responsibility, only 17% of roles were filled with ease.

High housing and living costs remain a serious barrier to recruitment in London and the south-east, but the cost of living is becoming increasingly problematic nationally. There has been a 7% rise in school leaders citing this reason for the problems they face. Difficulties in recruitment this year have meant that 41% of responding schools have had to cover lessons with senior leadership staff, distracting from school improvement, while 70% have had to use supply teachers at high cost.

New Grammar Schools

Chris Philp Excerpts

Thursday 8th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

I have a great amount of respect for the hon. Gentleman. I know he spent a career in education before coming into this place. I would simply say to him, as I have said to many other colleagues, that he should wait for the policy options to come out. I will be interested to hear his response to them in due course.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

I went to a state grammar school in south London, and I owe my place here to that school. The best grammar schools actively seek children from disadvantaged backgrounds, and 14% of pupils at Wallington County grammar school, next door to Croydon, are on free school meals. Does the Secretary of State support that school’s plan to open a satellite grammar school in my constituency, rather like the one that was opened in Sevenoaks a few months ago?

[Justine Greening]

I think all of us are here because of the education that we were lucky enough to have. The challenge that we face, and the challenge that we are debating today, is ensuring that no child misses out on that opportunity because of the postcode lottery of where they happen to have been born. We need to ensure that good schools, whatever kind of good schools they are, have more freedom to expand and deliver more good places in our school system for children who do not currently have them.

Trade Union Bill

Chris Philp Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

I think that the hon. Lady will therefore agree with the changes we are proposing today. She is right that strikes should always be a last resort—I think that is the point she is making. If union members wish to take strike action, they will vote for it and meet the proposed thresholds.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

The question of mandates was raised a few moments ago. Is the Secretary of State aware that when over 1,000 Londoners were polled by YouGov last month, 53% approved of these proposals and only 26% disapproved? Even among Labour voters the measures were approved of by 40 to 38.

[Sajid Javid]

My hon. Friend shows just how much support there is among the general public for these reforms.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Eagle]

More than that, I think the slightly shifty looks on the faces of many Government Members demonstrate that they know they have been found out. They have been rumbled.

It is abundantly clear that, whatever protestations we may have to the contrary, Vince Cable’s analysis explains what is really going on with this disgraceful piece of proposed legislation. Perhaps that is why so few people will defend it. Even Government Ministers will not defend it in public, as this tweet from “Murnaghan” revealed on Sunday:

“We asked the Government and the @Conservatives for an interview with any Minister/MP to defend the Trade Union Bill. No one was available.”

They do not want to be questioned about it. Like all authoritarians, they just want do it as quickly as possible and brook no dissent.

The right to be part of a trade union to campaign for protection at work is a fundamental socioeconomic right. It is enshrined in the UN’s universal declaration of human rights and the international covenant on civil and political rights.

[Chris Philp]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Ms Eagle]

No. I have given way a lot of times and I am in the middle of the peroration.

Before I was so rudely interrupted, I was just about to say that the Bill rides roughshod over that right. It threatens the basic options that those at work have to safeguard their pay and conditions by standing together to win improvements. Liberty, Amnesty and the British Institute of Human Rights have all said that the Bill’s purpose is to

“undermine the rights of all working people”

and amounts to a

“major attack on civil liberties in the UK.”

That warning should not be dismissed lightly by the Conservative party. Workers’ rights to freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and freedom of association are all undermined by the Bill. For example, the requirement forcing workers to disclose media comments to the authorities a week in advance or face a fine and the requirement under clause 9 for picket supervisors to register with the police and wear identifying badges are a dangerous attack on basic liberties that would not be tolerated by the Conservative party if they were imposed on any other section of society.

Remember that it is now known that thousands of people in the building trade have had their livelihoods taken away and their lives ruined by illegal employer blacklisting, a scandal that this Government have failed either to pursue or remedy. The Bill has been criticised for being OTT, with parts of it resembling the dictatorship of General Franco. Those are not my words, either, but the words of that noted Marxist agitator, the Conservative right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis).

That sinister intent needs to be added to other attempts by the Government to curb dissent in our country today. They have restricted access to justice by imposing fees to access the courts, which are causing the innocent to plead guilty. They want to scrap the Human Rights Act, which safeguards our basic freedoms. Their commitment to transparency in Government is in tatters with their plans to limit freedom of information powers. They have slashed legal aid and introduced employment tribunal fees, which deny women the chance to sue for equal pay or defend themselves against sexual harassment. They have limited the scope for judicial review and used their gagging law to bully charities into silence at the election, and now they are trying to silence the trade union voice through a tax on the existence of political funds, which finance general non-party political campaigning as well as the Labour party.

This is another gagging Bill, and those of us who care for the health of our democracy and civil society are united in opposing it. Clauses 2 and 3 are deliberately designed to undermine the bargaining power of trade unions by requiring minimum turnouts, thresholds and support before a strike ballot is valid. The new proposals demand a mandate for unions that breaks the democratic conventions of our society by counting votes not cast as essentially no votes.

More than half of the Cabinet would not have met that arbitrary threshold had it applied to their election to this House in May. Why do the Government have different standards for democracy and trade unions than anywhere else in our society? Clause 3 ensures that the 40% level of support restriction will apply to a much bigger list of sectors than the internationally recognised definition of “essential services” and, ominously, allows sectors to be added by secondary legislation that is as yet unpublished. From listening to the Secretary of State, it appears that the Government do not intend to publish it until the Bill is in the Lords.

If the Government are so worried about participation in ballots, why do they not allow e-balloting and secure workplace balloting, which are used routinely by many organisations? Clauses 4 to 6 might more usefully be described as the clauses that smother unions in “blue tape” and the hypocrisy of the Business Secretary in this respect is staggering. In July, he launched his drive to cut red tape, yet when it comes to unions he is increasing the powers of the certification officer and deliberately placing additional information and reporting burdens on unions. Not content with doing that, the Government, through clauses 12 and 13, are reducing the ability of trade union officials to do their jobs with the introduction of new powers to restrict facility time.

It is not hard to come to the conclusion that these proposals have been written to be as unworkable and difficult to comply with as possible. They also create many more opportunities for ballots to be challenged by employers for minor technical reasons. Again, it is clear that the increased risk of employer challenge is an integral part of the Government’s intentions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Eagle]

We will have to have a chat about whether the Labour party should organise in Northern Ireland. It is a long-standing issue within our party. I would be more than happy to talk to the hon. Lady about that, but I suspect Madam Deputy Speaker would stop me from doing so over the Dispatch Box.

We all know that this Government—barely with a majority—increasingly behave in a grossly partisan way, whether it is through individual electoral registration designed to disfranchise voters, by introducing English votes for English laws, or now by making changes to party funding to try to hobble the main Opposition.

[Chris Philp]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Ms Eagle]

I suppose so—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has melted my heart.

[Chris Philp]

That is something I thought I would be unable to do; I am grateful that my persistence has paid off. The motivation behind this Bill has nothing to do with the things that the hon. Lady has just mentioned; it is to do with protecting and helping ordinary hard-working people to go about their day-to-day lives and their work unimpeded by strike action, which sometimes has turnouts as low as 16%. It is reasonable to protect them, and I ask the hon. Lady to support that

[Ms Eagle]

Disillusion has set in very quickly, I am afraid, with the hon. Gentleman. All I can say is that I am a long-standing member of a trade union, so I know many trade unionists, and I know that very few of them would contemplate being silly enough to have industrial action with very low turnouts and very little support, because that simply does not work.

The Prime Minister used to say he wanted to reform party funding and would limit donations from all sources. Now, however, instead of addressing the big money in politics—and the big issues that are causing disillusionment from politics generally—with millionaire hedge-fund donors being treated to lunches and dinners with the Cabinet, this Government are, outrageously, focusing on curbing only trade union donations. There is an important issue about big money in politics, but it needs to be dealt with on a cross-party basis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens]

Yes, indeed. I think the system is transparent. In my own trade union, we had the choice to fund the affiliated political fund within Unison or the general political fund, or even to opt out of the political fund.

The other danger with this Bill is that it politicises the role of the certification officer. We are also concerned with the new proposals on picketing and providing names. Such measures can only result in a new blacklist. Anyone who is a picket might as well wear two armbands—“union picket” on one arm and “blacklist me” on the other. That sets a very dangerous precedent. It also does not take into account the fact that Scotland and England have different criminal laws. I believe that is why we have heard comparisons with Franco’s regime.

The other concern relates to agency workers who are not supported by the agencies themselves. That can lead only to distrust within a workplace between those who are agency workers and those who work for the employer. Any time an employer asks a trade union about bringing in agency workers, there will immediately be suspicions about what the employer is up to. It is a rogue employers’ charter and the Government must think again on the matter.

I want to talk about check-off and facility time, and the incredible statements we have heard from the Government in that regard. I submitted a written parliamentary question on check-off and received the following answer from the Cabinet Office:

“It is no longer appropriate for public sector employers to carry the administrative burden of providing a check off facility for those trade unions that have not yet modernised their subscription arrangements. Employers are under no obligation to offer this service. There would therefore be no cost associated with an employer not providing this service”.

That shows a lot of ignorance, because what the Government appear not to know—they seem blissfully unaware of this—is that in many instances trade unions pay for check-off and for workers on facility time.

Let me give some examples of the deductions that could be made from a worker’s salary: charities’ give-as-you-earn, season ticket loans, credit union payments, staff associations—under these proposals there can be deductions for staff associations, but not for trade unions—bicycle loans, council tax and rent. Those are just examples of what can be deducted from a worker’s salary, and the Government call removing check-off modernisation! What a ludicrous suggestion.

[Chris Philp]

First, all the examples that the hon. Gentleman has just given involve the employee opting in, rather than opting out, which is exactly what this legislation proposes. Secondly, of the 972 public bodies that do check-off fees, only 213—that is 22%—charge for the service; 78% do it for free.

[Chris Stephens]

The point is that they have chosen to provide the service for free. If there was a genuine consultation on this, many public bodies, including the Scottish and Welsh Governments, would say that they are not interested in removing check-off. Indeed, my former employer, Glasgow City Council, has today said that it is not interested and that it will ignore the request. The hon. Gentleman appears to suggest that people join trade unions automatically, but that is not the case. I signed a form and decided to tick my political fund arrangements on that basis.

Our view is that the Government have no right to interfere in the industrial relations of councils, health boards or devolved Administrations in the United Kingdom. Facility time improves industrial relations. It negates issues that would otherwise go to tribunal. If an employer has good facility time arrangements, disciplinary hearings and grievance hearings, for example, are conducted in a timeous fashion. If facility time is interfered with, those timescales will slip. Facility time is a good thing; it is good for industrial relations and it gets things done.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Johnson]

That is correct, and it should be something that we look at as part of a review of our democratic process, stretching from the other place to all the other aspects that Conservative Members have raised about the health of our democracy.

[Chris Philp]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Alan Johnson]

No, I will not give way.

One thing that cannot be suggested is that the decision on the European Union is less important than the decision that union members take in industrial action ballots, but that is the only argument put forward for the introduction of this measure in the Bill. These are important issues, we are told, and the loss of important public services can have far-reaching effects on significant numbers of ordinary people. Well, so can the EU referendum. I suggest that Conservative Members should make the argument that people who do not vote should be recorded as voting no—

[Chris Philp]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Alan Johnson]

No, I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman. We have heard enough from him—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I seem to have made a popular decision.

Of course, the Government would make no such proposal, because it does not support democracy—indeed, it offends democracy. But we know nothing of the responses from all the institutions that may want us to take their views into account because the Bill was drawn up and put before the House even though the consultation closed only last Wednesday, five days ago. Incidentally, that breaches the Government’s own advice on how to consult on legislation.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) mentioned, the Bill did go before the Regulatory Policy Committee, which was scathing about three aspects of the legislation it was asked to examine, including the thresholds for 40% and 50%. It gave a red card to all three, deeming them not fit for purpose and stating that the Government had not provided sufficient evidence of the likely impact of the proposals to support the consultation. The Regulatory Policy Committee is the Government’s own watchdog, and that is as damning an indictment of a piece of legislation as we are ever likely to see from it.

Another aspect of the Bill is the attempt to make processes involved in picketing part of criminal rather than civil law. It is designed to address allegations of picket line intimidation, but the Carr review, set up by the Conservatives under the coalition Government to investigate such allegations, specifically said that it could find no evidence of intimidation. In response to the review, which was led by a Conservative, the Local Government Association said that its view was that

“there are no particular issues for local government in terms of alleged extreme tactics and the appropriateness of the legal framework to deal with inappropriate and intimidatory actions …we…very rarely…hear of such alleged tactics”.

Through the Association of Chief Police Officers, the police said:

“In general the legislative framework is seen by the police as broadly fit for purpose and the range of criminal offences available to the police sufficient to deal with the situations encountered.”

This is a non-issue. It was examined by a committee that had to downgrade itself because there was no evidence.

The Government know little about the workplaces of Britain and understand less. They certainly have no comprehension of the role that free, independent trade unions play as an essential component of a mature democracy or the history of the struggle for workers’ rights in this country. Many Conservative Members probably think the Donovan commission was the backing group on “Mellow Yellow”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow that thoughtful speech from the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), particularly as he quoted Margaret Thatcher with approval.

The history of trade unions is an honourable one, arising in the late 19th century, when workers were suffering from widespread oppression. Throughout the late 19th and early 20th centuries, trade unions performed vital functions. It is worth remembering, of course, that many of those functions are now fulfilled by Parliament; it has legislated for a national minimum wage, provision for sickness and holiday payments, protection against unfair dismissal and so on. Therefore, many of the injustices that trade unions quite rightly fought against at the outset have now been dealt with by Parliament. I want to emphasise that the right to strike and the right for trade unions to operate are in no way threatened by the Bill. The right to strike will still exist, as it absolutely should.

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough and the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) both asked the question, “What is the purpose of this legislation?” Its principal purpose is to protect people who suffer when strikes take place. Let me quote a lady from Stoke-on-Trent who runs a hairdressing salon and has a child:

“It isn’t fair on parents, who could be missing out on a day’s pay by not working when teachers strike.”

Strikes have a profound effect on other members of society, which is why it is appropriate to put in place a reasonable threshold before strike action can be taken. For example, exactly a year ago Unison’s NHS staff voted for strike action on a turnout of 16% and with 11% of the membership voting in favour. I do not think that mandate is strong enough to merit inconveniencing tens of thousands of patients and potentially having operations postponed.

Furthermore, since 2008 there have been 26 strikes on the London underground—I am a London MP, and I have lived in this city all my life. Anyone who claims that the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers does not strike lightly has not tried to travel in this city during one of those 26 strikes. I point out that 19 of those strikes would not have happened under this legislation.

[Catherine West]

But does the hon. Gentleman accept that those strikes have tripled since the Tories took over in London in 2008? It is an absolute disgrace that the Mayor of London has never sat down and met the trade unions and treated them as though they were equal partners or human beings in the same race.

[Chris Philp]

I think that it is very unfortunate that the RMT has chosen to be so confrontational. As my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) pointed out earlier, even his predecessor, Ken Livingstone, met RMT officials only once, and he insulted them in the meeting.

Questions were asked earlier about the mandate for this legislation. I remind those Members who oppose the Bill that a YouGov poll conducted only four weeks ago found that 53% of Londoners are in favour of these measures and only 26% are opposed. Moreover, I challenge the assertion made by some Opposition Members that union activity does not stoke excessive strike action. It is instructive to compare days lost due to strike action in the private sector, where union membership is relatively low, with days lost in the public sector, where union membership is more widespread. We find that last year the number was 40 times higher in the public sector than it was in the private sector, despite the fact that terms and conditions—pay, holidays and so on—are, if anything, slightly better in the public sector.

I would like briefly to address the issue of facility time. The TaxPayers Alliance—[Interruption]—which clearly commands widespread support on the Opposition Benches, has calculated that the effective subsidy to unions from the public purse as a result of facility time is £108 million every year. The unions do not necessarily need that money—they have plenty of money to make political donations with—and it is not reasonable for the public purse to fund what is often party political activity.

In conclusion, I think that the Bill is a reasonable, moderate measure that will protect people from the often very disruptive effects of strike action.