Schools that work for Everyone

Christian Matheson Excerpts

Monday 12th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

My hon. Friend has set out, as in previous points that have been made, the particular challenges that rural communities face in having strong choice and strong school places locally. I assure him that I am well aware that hon. Members in rural areas are concerned to see us get on with the national funding formula next steps, and we will be announcing what we are going to do shortly.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

May I give the Secretary of State the opportunity to answer a question that I tried to get her to answer last week, which she simply failed to address? We can either have school selection or we can have parental choice; on one hand the school selects, and on the other the parents choose. Which is it?

[Justine Greening]

In the end, it is both. At the moment, many parents do not have the choice of a grammar school, so it makes sense to see what we can do to rectify that. I disagree with the underlying premise of the hon. Gentleman’s question, which is that if a child cannot get into a grammar, there are no other good schools around for them. We want to make sure that there are. In many parts of the country, grammars and non-grammar schools coexist very well together and, indeed, work very effectively together. We would be wrong not to respond to parents who want more good school places and the option of a grammar school for their child.

New Grammar Schools

Christian Matheson Excerpts

Thursday 8th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We should not accept poor school standards, whatever school the children are in. We must challenge low attainment wherever we find it, but the point I am making today is that it is not good enough to take something off the table just because of political ideology. We need to challenge all aspects of our education system to play a greater role in raising attainment and building capacity.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

There remains a fundamental contradiction at the heart of the Government’s thinking, which I suspect has been muddled by the ideology that they are accusing Labour of: either the school selects or the parent chooses, but you cannot have selection and choice together. Therefore, does not the suggestion last night by the Prime Minister that she wants to see an element of selection surely indicate that the Government have abandoned parental choice?

[Justine Greening]

I encourage the hon. Gentleman to wait for the policy options to be announced. I am sure that he will want to respond to them.

Term-time Holidays

Christian Matheson Excerpts

Thursday 19th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gibb]

My hon. Friend explains the situation accurately. It is for the headteacher to determine whether there are exceptional circumstances so that they can grant authorised absences.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

The situation obviously lacks clarity after this judgment, and I was concerned that there was a lack of clarity even before the judgment, which I hoped the Minister might turn his attention to. I had a constituency case in which children were denied the opportunity to go to Spain for the funeral of their Spanish grandmother. Will he consider providing headteachers with greater clarity to ensure that such travel is considered an exceptional circumstance?

[Mr Gibb]

I think the situation before the High Court judgment was clear—the headteacher has discretion on whether to grant authorised absence, and can do so only in exceptional circumstances. The National Association of Head Teachers has helpfully produced a two-page guidance note setting out what it believes its members should consider when determining whether an absence should be authorised. It makes it clear that funerals should be regarded as an exceptional circumstance.

Trade Union Bill (Discussions)

Christian Matheson Excerpts

Thursday 28th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

If I were to intervene on grounds of order every time a question is not answered, nothing else would ever happen in the Chamber.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

I confess to a sense of bemusement at this urgent question, which seems to be little more than a contrived confluence of the pet prejudices of right-wing Tories, namely trade unions and the European Union. That said, I restate my absolute opposition to this Bill. Will the Minister confirm that trade unions remain a part of civil society and have an absolute right to make representations to the Government on behalf of their members, irrespective of what right-wing Conservative Back Benchers might wish?

[Nick Boles]

Of course I confirm that, but the position governing strike action, the proper regulation of trade union activities with regard to finances and membership, and the position on picketing and intimidation of non-striking workers, were not acceptable until this Bill was introduced, and they will remain not acceptable until the Bill has secured Royal Assent. Of course I accept that trade unions have an important role in society, but they needed and will benefit from this reform. I put on record my gratitude to all my hon. Friends, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex, for their support for the Bill.

Enterprise Bill [Lords]

Christian Matheson Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Louise Haigh]

I completely agree. That point was made forcibly in the urgent question last Friday. Department for Business, Innovation and Skills workers were watching and were horrified by the Minister’s response to that question. It is not understandable that those people should be concerned that their jobs are only secure for the time being, until the Government can force through weakened redundancy terms? Given the announcement last week, people across the civil service will understandably be further concerned.

On the specific issues, people who have given long service to the public sector—midwives, nurses, librarians, social workers; people whom we, on either side of the House, could not describe as fat cats—have dedicated their lives to improving society. Is the Minister comfortable that these incredible workers will be impacted by the cap on exit payments? Why, when this policy was proposed last year by the Minister for Employment, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), were people earning less than £27,000 explicitly exempted to

“protect the very small number of low earning, long-serving public servants”?

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that, on the one hand, the Government are always ready to praise the work and contribution of public sector workers, in particular at the lower end of the scale, but that, on the other, it seems they are not ready to recognise that financially when those workers come to the end of their careers and face the difficult decisions that have to be taken by management?

[Louise Haigh]

Exactly. That is a really important point, given that this is a clear U-turn in Government policy following the announcement last year. There is absolutely no such exemption in the Bill. In the NHS, for example, even without the inclusion of pension strain payments, according to research by the union Unison, the proposed cap will affect nurses, midwives and paramedics with long service. These issues were the subject of very high level negotiations, where a higher level cap was set to mitigate against penalising long service in key front-line services. For this reason, will the Minister consider exempting people with salaries on or below average earnings?

On industrial relations, the exit payment cap will be implemented across a range of public service areas that already have fair, transparent and effective procedures in place which arise from collective agreements negotiated between employers and trade unions that are sensitive to the specific issues facing each sector. If we have anything to learn from the junior doctors’ action, it is that good industrial relations are vital and that we should not legislate haphazardly to weaken terms and conditions.

The Secretary of State said we should move away from the “Whitehall knows best” attitude—I could not agree more—but the Bill weakens that ambition by imposing an arbitrary cap across the civil service on exit payments and by restricting the freedom and flexibility that employers require to manage restructuring and redundancies effectively, at a time when public sector employers require it most. The public sector is in the middle of its most dramatic budget cuts in decades, and employers are having to restructure almost every aspect of public services to meet their new budgetary constraints. In moving the goalposts in the middle of an extended period of large-scale reorganisation, without an initial period of protection, particularly for staff over 50, the Government are further limiting the opportunity for employers fairly to reconsider strategic and operational decisions made in previous reorganisations and planned to be effected in stages on the assumption that current agreements and policies would apply. Will the Minister therefore consider a grace period for public sector employers undergoing reorganisation?

On the public purse, the Government seek to justify the cap solely on the basis of the cost of payments to staff in the public sector between 2011 and 2014. This is the only evidence provided in their consultation, but it fails to recognise that, during the same period, employment in the civil service fell by 107,350, under the current civil service compensation scheme arrangements. No evidence is provided to demonstrate that the cap will deliver value-for-money savings, as changes in the compensation payments naturally affect the number of staff willing to exit the public sector, which might engender higher costs elsewhere.

As for the coalition Government’s early conciliation scheme, which has actually worked quite well, the proposals could have a perverse impact by diverting people to tribunals, where settlements will not be capped, and avoiding settlements at this optimal stage. Ministers should therefore consider exempting such conciliation payments from the cap.

Finally, two more important exceptions should be considered: first, whistleblowers, and secondly, people retiring on ill-health grounds. Whistleblowing is a vital part of our democracy, and capping settlements in such cases could easily deter people from blowing the whistle, given that this often puts their livelihoods and reputations at risk. The Government have made clear their intention not to include those retiring on ill-health grounds and that this will be put in secondary legislation, so will the Minister take this opportunity to make it clear that this is the case and that such people will be explicitly exempted?

Childcare Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

Christian Matheson Excerpts

Thursday 10th December 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Ms Dorries, may I seek your advice on the tabling of Government amendments, please, in the light of an occurrence overnight in the Housing and Planning Bill Committee? The Government tabled amendments for the last day of consideration that will fundamentally change the structure of the Bill and bring great insecurity to social housing tenants with the ending of long-term secure tenancies. Is it in order for me to seek an assurance from the Government that no such stunts will be pulled in this Committee? If the Government intend to table amendments that will fundamentally change the nature of the Bill, perhaps we will be given time to consider them properly, rather than doing so on the last day of consideration.

[The Chair]

That is not an issue for the Chair; the issue for the Chair is that amendments will be accepted for this, or presumably any other Bill Committee only if they are tabled three full working days before the next sitting. If the Minister wishes to table an amendment for Tuesday, as long as it is tabled by the rise of the House today, which will be three full working days before the Committee’s next sitting, he is quite within his rights to do so, as the hon. Gentleman or the Opposition spokesman would be. I hope that answers the hon. Gentleman’s question.

Clause 3

Non-compliance in the labour market etc: interpretation

Childcare Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Christian Matheson Excerpts

Tuesday 8th December 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Pat Glass]

Actually, I can, because that is exactly what has happened. In my view, the funding is not enough and it is a fact that the eligibility threshold has increased. Those are simply facts. Anyway, moving on—

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

There seems to be a bit of confusion. The whole point of the clause we are debating is that we sit back with the sector, private providers, to find out what the correct levels are. In view of that and given the confusion, does my hon. Friend agree that what is in the Bill, as it stands, would actually be a good idea for the sector?

--- Later in debate ---

I am pleased to say that every time I have risen in the House to ask for an amendment to be made or for women in refuge to be exempted from something, that has happened. I hope that on this occasion women in refuge will be exempted from the eligibility criteria.

[Christian Matheson]

I may be showing my inexperience, in which case I apologise to the Minister and hon. Members for misunderstanding the process, but when my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham moved the amendment, I listened with some dismay, because it seems that while at the general election there was a clear pledge of 30 hours’ free childcare, there is now a lack of clarity about who is eligible for the programme. Apparently we see the Government backtracking on matters: they have tried to squeeze the criteria into the promise they made at that time.

I am inexperienced in these matters, so perhaps it is normal for a party to make an announcement at a general election that is not properly costed and then it has to come up with proposals on how the criteria will fit the policy in the legislative process. If I am doing the Minister a disservice, I will gladly apologise, but I ask the Conservatives to consider the pitfalls of making promises without a fully costed programme and then having to cost them afterwards.

[Lucy Frazer]

The hon. Gentleman is talking about our promises. The Labour party said:

“Labour has a better plan for working families.”

Its offer was to working families; it was not universal. It offered an extension not to 30 hours, but to 25 hours, and in no place did it mention special provisions for vulnerable people.

[Christian Matheson]

That is all well and good, but the fact is we were clear about our policies and where the money would come from. Unfortunately, our amendments reveal a lack of detail in the Government’s proposals and I hope the Minister will answer that. I am slightly dismayed that we need these probing amendments in the first place to try to get clarity when no such clarity was lacking before the general election.

My hon friends the Members for North West Durham and for Birmingham, Yardley asked questions about voluntary workers. I recall the Prime Minister talking about his vision for a big society in which voluntary work plays such an important part in the development of communities. I hope the Minister will bear that in mind, assuming that the Prime Minister still holds that vision—perhaps the big society has fallen by the wayside.

Finally, the Minister explained that HMRC will have a role in assessing eligibility in terms of the grace period. My one concern is that contacting HMRC is not a straightforward procedure, as anyone who has tried to do so over the past couple of years will know. The organisation is under strain on tax returns, for example, and asking it to take on additional duties will put extra strain on it. Will the Government provide extra resources to HMRC to allow it to maintain the quality of its service, as I am sure officers of HMRC wish to do? I fear that the proposals will place a greater burden on HMRC, which will make contacting it to talk about the matters that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley raised even more difficult. Perhaps the Minister will address those points.

Childcare Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Christian Matheson Excerpts

Tuesday 8th December 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Jess Phillips]

Perhaps they did not realise and thought the subsidies were bigger. As I said, I would be delighted if the Minister proved me wrong. However, I can almost guarantee that for the next five years after the roll-out, we will see a higher-than-inflation increase in the cost of childcare for parents of children aged nought to three. I really hope I am wrong, but something will have to give. I do not run a nursery, so I do not know—I am basing my comments on the evidence that has been given to me that there will be a massive shortfall. Maybe I will start a nursery—I like to take on new tasks.

As a parent, I know about the effect of growing demand. This year I was one of the many hundreds of thousands of parents who were told that they could no longer access childcare. There may be an increasing number of places and delight about the figures, the graphs and reports that we read, but the reality is different. I was told I could no longer access the childcare I have accessed for my children for years, because demand outstripped supply. That is happening to people every day, regardless of what the figures say. Supply is not growing to meet demand. I currently have no childcare before school for my children, which has fundamentally changed my family’s working habits. It has meant a reduction in the income of my husband, who is the full-time carer of my children. No chart or table will tell me that is not happening when I know it is—it is happening to me and to many other parents I speak to on the school run.

I want to be sure about the graphs, the funding and schemes that are being outlined. All I am asking for is a review of whether the funding will work. As I have said repeatedly, I want the Minster to prove me wrong. I want a review of whether there has been any rise in the costs of wrap-around childcare for children aged nought to three and those over four, like my children, and of how many women fall out of the labour market when their children are aged nought to three. I want to understand whether the Government have got their figures right.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

I apologise for making the schoolboy error earlier of not turning my phone to silent and therefore disrupting the Committee. I meant no disrespect, Ms Dorries.

I would have expected the Government to welcome the opportunity of a pause and a review because it would provide a breathing space for them to dig themselves out of a hole. We should remind ourselves of the genesis of the policy of 30 hours a week of childcare which, in common with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley, I genuinely welcome. The political genesis of the policy was that my party had offered a fully costed and prepared proposal for 25 hours a week, and the Conservatives entered the general election campaign determined to trump that with 30 hours a week, yet without doing the sums to work out where the money would come from, so I would have expected the Minister to welcome the proposal for a review and pause.

[Alex Cunningham]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Christian Matheson]

That would be handy, because I need to read something from my iPad, which has turned itself off.

[Alex Cunningham]

I am not sure that that was the role that I had intended to undertake.

The Government have said 30 hours, which trumped our 25 hours, but is that not to be welcomed? An extra five hours a week is a tremendous figure. We want the scheme to work, but we want it to be funded, and all the organisations are saying that there is not enough money and that the estimates are based on the wrong data. The Government need to get it right so that we can all celebrate the wonderful fact that the Tories have trumped the Labour party.

[Christian Matheson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I also thank the Minister for, and congratulate him on, the extension to 30 hours, which will be welcomed by parents up and down the country, as long as it works. I do not wish to be churlish and I hope that my comments will be taken in the spirit with which I offer them.

[Mr Gyimah]

The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that both main parties promised to increase the free entitlement for three and four-year-olds at the election, with the Labour party saying 25 hours and the Conservatives saying 30. However, we were the only party to commit to two things: a review of the cost of providing childcare; and an increase in the hourly rate. I did not see a reference to any review or increase in rates in the Labour party’s manifesto. We did not just make a promise; we are delivering. What is the basis for the hon. Gentleman’s claim that our pledge cannot be delivered, but Labour’s could have been?

[Christian Matheson]

I remind the Minister that the Labour party’s proposals—I appreciate that we are not discussing them, and I know your keenness that we stick to the Bill, Ms Dorries—were fully costed. My suspicion is that the Government’s proposals were not costed at the time, but I do not want to provoke your ire, Ms Dorries, so I will not make the same mistake as other colleagues—

[The Chair]

Order. Please stick to the amendment.

[Christian Matheson]

There will be many beneficiaries of these proposals. I welcomed the hon. Member for Norwich North saying that fathers will benefit because we are moving, although perhaps not as swiftly as we might like, into an age in which fathers have more childcare responsibilities. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley made the good point that the gender pay gap will continue as long as we have a greater emphasis on maternal childcare, but I will not go into that as we are not on that topic at the moment.

One area that the review might take into account is the effect on providers. If the Committee will allow me, I will quote a constituent, and I may write to the Minister in greater depth about this particular case, because it is quite detailed. There is consternation—or concern, perhaps—that the numbers do not necessarily add up for providers. My constituent tells me that the reality of the current proposals is that

“each hour of extra funding”

for his nursery in Chester

“would mean a potential loss of £1.10, so that’s £16.50 per week per child.”

He continues:

“We have 35 registered children currently, which equates to £577.50 per week, times 14 weeks in this term,”

which means

“£8085.00 per term, or £24,000 per year.”

Those figures are losses due to the shortfall for providers. I do not expect the Minister to respond to that particular case now and I apologise for putting him on the spot without having written to him first, but the example illustrates the concern among providers that the numbers do not add up. A review that included providers would at least give us reassurance, or might identify a problem that needs addressing.

My constituent went on to write:

“The implications of this, coupled with increased rates, fuel costs and the… proposals to increase the national minimum wage, will put the pressure squarely on the providers shoulders, meaning they will either not be able to provide the level of care each parent rightfully demands, or it could even put them out of business”.

[Chloe Smith]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a problem in some parts of the country with local authorities not passing on as much of the funding as they ought to? I welcome the spreadsheets with which we have been provided to show that that is happening across the country. As I said on Second Reading, Norfolk County Council holds back 8% of the funding, whereas the figure elsewhere in the country is fractions of that, and I think that that is wrong.

[Christian Matheson]

I deliberately did not want to quote the whole of a long and quite complicated email from my constituent, but he makes a similar point. I have to say that my local authority of Cheshire West and Chester Council has just had £47 million taken off its annual budget by the Chancellor.

[The Chair]

Order.

[Christian Matheson]

Indeed, Ms Dorries.

[Mr Gyimah]

rose—

[Christian Matheson]

I am very close to the end of my speech but, of course, I give way to the Minister.

[Mr Gyimah]

I want to draw the Committee’s attention to a point made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley about the cost of childcare and low funding rates. Central Government give Birmingham £5.49 and it pays £3.83 to providers. If there is a challenge around childcare in that area, it is not because the Government are under-funding childcare, but because of what the local authority is top-slicing. Of course it has to top-slice, but I would like to know why there is such a gap for Birmingham.

[Christian Matheson]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, but a Minister talking about funding for local authorities as a whole will be skating on thin ice, because such funding is not a good story for the Government.

The Minister may want me to write to him with more details about the case I cited, but childcare providers’ concerns need to be addressed. The review under the clause would give the Government breathing space to ensure that the numbers add up and could reassure providers who are working hard to offer a quality service to parents in my constituency and others.

[The Chair]

I call the Minister.

Further Education

Christian Matheson Excerpts

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson]

rose—

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

rose—

[Nicky Morgan]

Let me make some progress, and then I will take further interventions.

The shadow Secretary of State asked why we prioritised spending on five to 16 rather than 16 to 19. I wonder whether she has checked out what her own party did when they were last in Government. What is interesting to note is that per pupil student funding increased twice as fast for those aged five to 16 between 2005-06 and 2010-11 as it did for those in 16-to-19 education. That is the very thing that she accuses us of doing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

rose—

[Christian Matheson]

rose—

[Nicky Morgan]

I have said that I am not going to take any more interventions until I have made some more arguments.

As hon. Members decided not to do that, we cannot have a sensible debate—[Interruption.]

Trade Union Bill

Christian Matheson Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Stephens]

The reason it would have gone ahead in any case is that the thresholds the Government are trying to introduce would have been met.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

Is it not the case that the Conservative Mayor of London has not met the unions in the transport sector in London at all during his tenure? Would not a better method be to have proper industrial relations with negotiations and dialogue rather than sabre-rattling?

[Chris Stephens]

I agree. There will be an opportunity for the electorate in London to pass judgment on that at the appropriate time next year.

--- Later in debate ---

Let me turn to the detail of the various amendments on ballot thresholds, information, mandates, and consent by devolved authorities. Commuters and families all over Great Britain suffer disruption when the workers in a local transport provider or school go on strike. By increasing the democratic mandate, the Bill will not stop strikes—it may not even lead to many fewer strikes—but it will reassure members of the public that strikes are happening on the basis of strong democratic mandates, and that their lives are not being disrupted for no purpose.

[Christian Matheson]

Several private bus companies in Chester have recently withdrawn rural services, which is inconveniencing commuters in Chester. Why are the Government not legislating to stop them doing that?

[Nick Boles]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that those people have alternative services, and where they do have alternatives we are not proposing to introduce the higher mandate. We are producing the higher mandate when a service is effectively a monopoly in the life of consumers, and they have no other possibility they can arrange at short notice.

On the certification officer, it is entirely reasonable for a union regulator to mirror the geographical extent of unions themselves. It would be very disruptive to have a single union subject to different regulatory arrangements in Scotland than in the rest of Great Britain—or, worse, for a union to be subject to no regulation at all in Scotland or Wales, but subject in parts of England. It is worth noting that the 1992 Act already provides, under section 254, that the certification officer may appoint an assistant certification officer for Scotland, and may delegate to that assistant certification officer such functions as he thinks appropriate in relation to unions based in Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

They can make matters far worse. When we look at this proposal alongside clause 7, it becomes clear that the introduction of an extended notice period is there to give the employer additional time to organise agency workers to undermine the industrial action, as well as to be able to prepare for legal challenges. My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head: this is bad for safety and bad for service users, and bad because it could serve to prolong industrial action unnecessarily. It will also be bad for the general public. Conservative Members ought to care about the fact that it will also be bad for social cohesion in this country. Presumably, as a next step the Government will be getting the Department for Work and Pensions to sanction the unemployed for refusing to act as strike breakers.

[Christian Matheson]

Has my hon. Friend also considered that in the long term the resentment that will be caused in the business affected will also mean that those actions will be bad for business?

[Kevin Brennan]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. He knows well, and Conservative Members ought to know, that the festering resentment that would arise as a result of this kind of approach to industrial relations would last for many years, and in some communities would never be forgotten.

The TUC is firmly opposed to this proposal, which in its opinion will breach international law. The International Labour Organisation’s freedom of association committee has confirmed that

“the hiring of workers to break a strike in a sector which cannot be regarded as an essential sector in the strict sense of the term...constitutes a serious violation of freedom of association”.

New clause 1 would insert in the Bill a ban on the supply of agency workers during strikes, and we will therefore support it if it is pushed to a vote tonight. I also want to press amendment 6 to a Division—the lead amendment in this group, which is in my name and the names of my hon. Friends.

Let me say a few brief words about amendment 5, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy). It would allow check-off if employers and unions agreed that they wanted it, provided that the unions paid for the service. I understand why the hon. Gentleman would table such an amendment, as it seems to reflect some of the basic values that I thought were supposed to be in the DNA of his political party. When one party is willing by agreement to provide a service to another party in exchange for payment, the state should not interfere unless the service forms some kind of criminal or immoral activity.

Check-off is a voluntary agreement by an employer to collect through its pay roll the union subscription of trade union members who are its employees. Despite what the Government seem to think, that is not a criminal or an immoral activity. Why on earth would a Conservative Government think it is right for the state to proscribe a voluntary agreement between an employer and an employee where a payment for that service is involved? I completely understand why the hon. Gentleman has tabled his amendment.

What is wrong with an employer, in whatever sector, voluntarily agreeing, as part of an attempt to maintain good relations with employees, to help collect the trade union subscription in exchange for an administrative payment? How on earth is it the responsibility of Government, particularly a Conservative Government, to introduce a provision of this kind?