Oral Answers to Questions

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts)]

We continue to provide support to students. The national scholarship programme has been shown to have less effect on young people choosing to go to university than some of the other support that is available through maintenance and student access programmes. We continue to work on the agenda set out by my right hon. Friend, ensuring that as many young people as possible from disadvantaged backgrounds apply to university.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

T7. The Government have consistently been on the back foot when it comes to addressing the issue of late payments to small businesses. In the review of that, how will they address the central issue that late payment is a cultural and leadership issue, and needs to be seen as unethical as tax evasion?

[Matthew Hancock]

Late payment is indeed a cultural and leadership issue. I held a meeting in the Department last week with all those concerned. As the hon. Lady well knows, we will be publishing a consultation paper very shortly. I commend her for her continued action and pressing on this issue.

PISA Results

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Under the academies programme, head teachers have the freedom—as is being used in the King Solomon academy in one of the most deprived parts of London—to vary the curriculum in order to make it fit the needs of individual students. We are also giving all schools greater freedom over who they recruit and how they reward them, in order to make sure that we continue to have more and more talented people in our classrooms.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

Andreas Schleicher also said that no education system can exceed the quality of its teachers. How does a 141% increase in unqualified teachers in free schools and academies help improve quality?

[Michael Gove]

As I pointed out in response to the question asked by the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson), the increase in the number of unqualified teachers in academies and free schools is a direct result of the nationalisation of independent schools. Overall, the reduction under this Government in the number of teachers without teaching qualifications reflects the fact that teachers are now better qualified than ever before. Critically, the decision over who to hire should be a matter for head teachers. It is critical to the success of any education system that we respect the autonomy of great head teachers to recruit people with the right qualifications for their community and students.

Small Businesses

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Thursday 28th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) and to co-sponsor this debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) on securing it. I am pleased to speak in this debate, which considers how we can overcome the issues facing small businesses. Small businesses, which in my definition are those with fewer than 50 employees, are the powerhouse of the economy. They contribute 46% of the UK’s income in the private sector—a massive £l,558 billion—and constitute more than 99% of all businesses. Ultimately, a sustained recovery will be built on their backs, as has been said, and that must be recognised.

A whole range of different factors affect the success and even the viability of small businesses, including access to finance, the high costs of business rates and energy bills, but I will focus my remarks specifically on late payments. Hon. Members may know that for the past two and a half years I have run a campaign on late payments. It started as a small, local issue after a haulier came to one of my surgeries and said that he was going to go out of business because of late payments. The average term he was being given was 30 days, but he was often not being paid for 90 days. That is a common story that I wanted to look into in more detail.

I tried to discover the scale of the problem and it was striking that so few businesses would come forward and describe what they were experiencing. That was until one brave local couple, who started a plumbing business 35 years ago, came to me and said that their business was going under—as indeed it did with debts of more than £150,000 due specifically to late payment.

[Mark Pawsey]

Is the hon. Lady confusing late payments with customers who refuse or do not have the means to pay? Those are totally separate issues and if a business wants to avoid the problem of late payment, it can refuse to supply goods to the customer until the account has been paid.

[Debbie Abrahams]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, if slightly patronising. I have gone into the issue in quite a bit of detail, and it was a specific point about late payments.

Let me give a bit of background to this case. As I said, the story of Ann and Harry Long is far from unique and is a particular problem for small and micro-businesses that do not have the cash-flow buffers of larger companies. I have a particularly a high level of micro-companies in my constituency—more than 85% of companies have fewer than 10 employees—and a number have gone into administration, primarily as a result of late payments.

Nationally, we know from Bacs that more than £31 billion is owed to small businesses, and more than half—58%—of the country’s 1.7 million SMEs say that large companies choose when they pay. In 2011, only £24 billion was owed, so the problem is increasing. If we compare what is owed in late payments to the amounts being lent by high street banks, which last year was £56 billion, we sense the scale of the problem.

According to Bacs data, the average SME is owed £31,000 at any one time and waits an average of eight working weeks for payment, which is nearly double the contract terms. I am particularly concerned about the gaping north-south divide. Small businesses in the north say that they are owed an average of £39,000, which is almost double the £23,000 owed to the average southern business.

The 2012 small business survey reported that 55% of SMEs, 53% of small businesses and 46% of micro-businesses say that large companies are not paying their bills on time. The most recent Federation of Small Businesses survey suggests an even worse picture. Seventy-three per cent. of businesses say that they were paid late in the past 12 months, and one in five say that half of all invoices are paid late. Interestingly, 70% say that the problem has got worse in the past 12 months and that the private sector is the biggest culprit.

Research by the Forum of Private Business last year indicated that late payment is having a significant impact on businesses development, productivity and growth. Access to, and the cost of, finance, and credit trade insurance, were cited as problems linked to late payment. Late payments have a knock-on effect, leaving many small businesses in a vicious cycle of late payment. The FPB’s economy watch panel indicates that 42% of SMEs believe that late payments were not seen as important.

As we have heard, the impact of late payment can be disastrous. It is estimated that, during the 2008 recession, 4,000 businesses failed as a direct result of late payments. No official data have been collected, but the situation needs to be monitored. There is growing evidence that late payments to SMEs are hurting our economic recovery. Office for National Statistics data show that SMEs make up to 98% of the total number of organisations, providing 59% of all private sector jobs and 45% of all employment, and generating 46% of the UK’s income.

What is being done to tackle the problem of late payments? The previous Government introduced the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998, but it was not used, because companies feared being blacklisted. The prompt payment code, a tool introduced by the Institute of Credit Management, committed signatories to pay suppliers on time under the terms agreed without attempting to change payment terms retrospectively, enabling every level of the supply chain to meet the terms. However, the code has had mixed effects. First, there is a very poor take-up by FTSE 100 companies.

[Mr Bain]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful argument. What does she make of the National Audit Office recommendation that Government Departments need to work more closely together, and that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Treasury need to work harder to support small businesses in the way she indicates?

[Debbie Abrahams]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. We need to encourage that.

People are abusing the prompt payment code. They are either signing up and changing their terms, or changing their terms prior to signing. Most recently, the EU late payment directive stipulated that public authority-to-business invoices must be paid in 30 days, and that business-to-business invoices should be paid in 60 days. However, there have been problems with the transposition into UK law. Section 7 of the directive has not been taken up and independent organisations will be unable to use it to help small businesses.

Another development last year was the introduction of the small chain finance scheme. That is another difficult problem.

--- Later in debate ---

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

It is a tremendous pleasure to speak in what has been an excellent debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) on securing it. She speaks about small businesses with passion, dedication, enthusiasm and considerable vim, which I can inform the House, having been at the National Association of Commercial Finance Brokers dinner with her on Tuesday, is also the way she dances.

We have heard a tremendous amount about the importance of small businesses. As the challengers of tired orthodoxies and the drivers of social mobility, small businesses share one nation Labour’s values completely. It is a path that several of us have followed, as reflected in the debate. I worked in the private sector for my entire life and was running a small business when I became a Member of Parliament. From my perspective and, clearly, that of hon. Members across the House, there are few more important questions for us to consider than how we support small firms, which we all know are the engines of growth, the biggest employers of the long-term unemployed, and key drivers of economic recovery.

It is important that we listen to what the voices of business are saying. On Monday, I was in Harlow in Essex with the local chamber of commerce, meeting small businesses there and listening to their priorities. Another organisation right at the forefront of the fight to support small firms is the Federation of Small Businesses, which does a tremendous job. A report in the Leicester Mercury this week highlighted how a delegation from the east midlands, led by David Nicholls, chairman of the Leicestershire branch of the FSB, got the chance to lobby the Chancellor on the issues that he should address in his forthcoming autumn statement. What did the delegation choose to highlight? Interestingly, the Leicester Mercury tells us that they demanded action on energy prices, a reduction in businesses rates, and the Government taking responsibility for setting up a business bank—very wise indeed.

I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for securing the debate, but think she may have done so with a slightly heavy heart, because when it comes to the main issues being raised by small businesses, it is Labour that is leading the way. I want to reflect on some of the contributions to this balanced debate that have demonstrated that.

In her excellent speech, the hon. Lady talked about the need for a culture change that recognises the importance of small business across Government. We could not agree more. My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) made making Labour the party of small business a priority in his first conference speech and he has talked about it many times since. There are some good Government schemes out there but, as the hon. Lady said, many businesses do not know about them. The signposting is weak, and she was right to say that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) discussed the lessons we can learn from the Sparkassen in Germany. He was right to say that, under the German system and at the height of the banking crisis, they lent more to small businesses, not fewer, as happened here. He was also right to focus on the important issue of the number of businesses claiming that access to finance is still their No. 1 priority, a theme that the right hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Sir Andrew Stunell) returned to a few moments ago.

The hon. Members for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) and for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) were right to focus on the difficulty faced by small and medium-sized enterprises in getting on to Government procurement lists. It has been an issue for many years and clearly there is a long way to go.

My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) also spoke.

[Debbie Abrahams]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. He will be aware that earlier this year I chaired an all-party inquiry into late payments. The key finding was that late payment is a cultural issue that needs to be seen as just as toxic as tax evasion. Does he agree that we need to push the Government to make progress towards ensuring there is a cultural change so that late payment is unacceptable?

[Toby Perkins]

I certainly do. I was in the process of paying tribute to the work my hon. Friend has done on that issue. She is absolutely right.

The hon. Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey), whom I usually regard as a sound voice on the issue of small business, said that if someone is paid late they should refuse to supply the company, but that does not recognise the difference in the relationship between a powerful customer and a struggling supplier. Every year, 2,000 businesses go under simply because they are not paid money that is owed to them, so I think he was wrong about that. My hon. Friend is right to say that we need the Government to be at the forefront of not just encouraging people to pay on time, but ensuring that that culture change passes right down the public sector procurement chain to second and third-tier suppliers.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) made a lengthy advertisement—I sense it was somewhat to his embarrassment—for Danczuk’s deli. Numerous Members wanted to know about the excellent wares he will be providing. He has been in business before and it is great that he and his wife are opening a delicatessen in the centre of Rochdale and that he is putting his money where his mouth is.

The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod), my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale and the hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) spoke, among many others, about the tremendous difficulties caused by the increase in business rates, which I shall return to.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) promoted the value of local innovative firms and also focused on access to finance. The hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) is not in his place. [Interruption.] I see that he has moved—I do not know how I managed to miss that moustache. He encapsulated the bravery and pioneering spirit required to set up a business and he was right to say that it doesn’t half set the pulses racing. At such moments, people realise what colour adrenaline is.

My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) was entirely right to say that small businesses are undergoing a cost of living crisis, which I will reflect on in a moment.

The hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) said that Labour always liked to increase corporation tax. If he was still here, he would be surprised to discover that corporation tax was actually 3% less after 13 years of Labour Government. Perhaps he should talk to the former Prime Minister about that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Hancock]

The Department is of course doing what it can to mitigate the impact of that decision. The hon. Gentleman is quite right, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson), who spoke passionately about the impact of small businesses, which are embedded in their local communities through jobs and their contributions to local and national life, as well as the role of local authorities in planning, property and procurement.

There have been some fantastic contributions to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod), as well as recounting the various questions that she has asked at Prime Minister’s questions in the recent past, spoke about drilling enterprise through our education system, which I strongly support. My hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) also made that argument. Every time I speak to him, he seems to have another idea about how we can get more content about enterprise into the education system.

Many Members raised the issue of red tape, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma), who spoke about the impact of EU red tape. Members across this House must recognise that problem. It is wrongly dismissed by some, but it is an important issue that we need to address. We are doing so through the Prime Minister’s challenge to the EU. The taskforce of six business leaders who are looking at reforming EU regulations is putting the voice of business at the heart of the debate. It has made 30 recommendations on how to remove or improve the most burdensome EU rules. We are working with business to encourage the EU to take up those recommendations over the next year.

My hon. Friends the Members for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) and for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) raised the issue of regulations on employers, especially with regard to micro-businesses. We have made progress by ensuring that employees cannot go to a tribunal until they have been employed for two years and by introducing fees for tribunals. We need to keep this area under constant review because, fundamentally, what we must do is make it easier to employ people and create jobs. That is what growing small businesses is all about.

It is a great pleasure to see you take the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is the first time that I have been in a debate that you have chaired.

My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) was here earlier, but apologised that she had an engagement with some small businesses. I pay tribute to the work that she did to open up procurement to small businesses. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry said, what we are doing in that area is not complete. There is much more to do to improve the formal rules and to ensure that they are seen, exercised and stuck to not only across central Government, but throughout the public sector, including in local authorities. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has just reached the target of sending 25% of its invoices to small businesses. That target applies to the whole of central Government and all other Departments are working towards it.

Many hon. Members raised the issues of access to finance and late payment, not least the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams). The Government pay more than 85% of undisputed invoices within five days. That is a big change and an impressive feat.

[Debbie Abrahams]

Will the Minister confirm whether that includes suppliers in all tiers? I think that he is referring just to tier 1 suppliers.

[Matthew Hancock]

I was coming on to exactly that point. That figure refers to tier 1 and there is much more to do to drill prompt payments through the supply chain. We must spread that culture across the private sector as well. I will reflect on the hon. Lady’s point that we should make late payment just as culturally negative as tax avoidance and evasion. We will be launching a consultation on late payment shortly.

The right hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Sir Andrew Stunell) raised the issue of the banking appeals system. I do not want to pre-empt what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will say in the autumn statement in a week’s time, so I recommend that the right hon. Gentleman attends the House on that day.

Opposition Members raised various issues and spoke from different perspectives. The important issue of GRG and the treatment of small companies that have got into difficulties with the banks was raised. The Financial Conduct Authority is looking into the report that was published this week and RBS has appointed Clifford Chance to go through the cases that were raised in detail.

The hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain), in typically ebullient fashion, called for firm action and better communication of what we are doing. I certainly agree with him about firm action. That is what I hope to achieve.

On better communication, we have launched the Business is Great campaign, which Members may see on billboards and social media across the country, and the Great Business website brings together in one place the different things the Government and private sector are doing to support small businesses. It is a single portal—greatbusiness.gov.uk—and worth exploring.

The hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) mentioned access to finance, and particularly green measures. Although the Government have reduced the subsidy from energy bill payers and taxpayers to sponsor solar, by ensuring that the scheme was proportionate but still affordable, more than 1 million people are now living with solar panels on their roofs. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) spoke passionately about starting his own business with his wife. I hope he gets the chance to have a word with the Leader of the Opposition, who says he wants to ban Members from engaging in any outside employment, including a small business. I strongly hope that the idea that someone can run a small business and be an MP at the same time will continue because of the wealth of insight it brings to people in this place.

There were good speeches from Opposition Members, and it was a pity there were so few of them, given that support from the Government Benches was very powerful. The hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) raised the important issue of business rates. I am glad that one of the first things this Government did was stop the extension of business rates proposed by the previous Government because that would have been a great mistake. In fact, we have extended business rate relief every year, but I have no doubt that had the previous Government remained in office, they would have put up and extended business rates because that is what they were planning.

Apprenticeships

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

With a background in small business, I understand entirely. These plans will make it easier for small businesses to access apprenticeships.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

In my constituency and across Oldham, 8.6% of young people are not in education, employment or training, and we have a lower than average number of 16-to-18 year olds in apprenticeships. As I understand it, the Minister is saying that there will be no response until autumn on the recommendations for engaging with employers. Can we therefore assume that, four years into this Parliament, the Government will have done little or nothing on apprenticeships?

[Matthew Hancock]

No, I said that actions are already being taken forward and I have announced some direct actions today. We are introducing traineeships in the autumn, which aim to ensure that young people have the skills they need to get a job and to hold down a job. That is part of our response too.

Apprenticeships

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Marsden]

I am delighted to do so. That is another indication that Conservatives down in Kent seem to do things rather differently from Conservatives in Government.

As I was saying, could it be—perish the thought—that some Ministers are simply using European Union law as a convenient smokescreen to disguise their reluctance to support this kind of active, intelligent Government initiative? If that is the case, what do they think that our French or German counterparts would do? Do they think that they would allow arcane, untested notions of EU law to prevent them from expanding apprenticeships, given the dire unemployment rates among young people that exist under this Government? Why, if that is the case, does one of the Government’s own Departments claim to be following an approach much like ours?

Since July 2011, the Department for Work and Pensions has been operating its apprenticeships and skills requirement contract schedule, which requires:

“The Contractor shall and shall procure that its Sub-contractors shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that 5% of their employees are on a formal apprenticeship programme.”

The apprenticeships Minister himself praised the DWP initiative in a recent House of Commons response. That is all well and good, but if the initiative is such a good idea, why have the Government not extended it to other Departments? Why has the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, as the lead Department for apprenticeships, not taken matters any further in the 20 months since the launch of that initiative? Why have the Cabinet Office, the Deputy Prime Minister, and even the occupants of No. 10—who waxed eloquent yesterday about the value of apprenticeships being the new norm—done nothing? That is not exactly the equivalent of Churchill’s “action this day”. Are this Government so supine, so conflicted and so hung up that they prefer taking away people’s employment rights to creating career opportunities for them? Does it not boil down to the resistance of many, if not all, in the Tory-led coalition to any active, intelligent role for Government which would require them to strain every sinew to promote economic growth and expand young people’s life chances?

The Government cannot and should not micro-manage, but they must expand apprenticeship places more vigorously and systematically than they are at present. That is central to what we need to achieve as a country so that we can compete and thrive in the 21st-century world. It is no wonder that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made the expansion of apprenticeships with employers and other stakeholders, and the introduction of the “tech bacc”, the central focus in his speech to the Labour party conference last year. He has also spelt out the way in which a future Labour Government could apply the same criterion to major infrastructure projects such as High Speed 2, with the objective of creating at least 33,000 additional apprenticeships.

We can see how the same formula could be applied directly elsewhere, and in other Departments beside the DWP. For example, there are four existing road projects announced by the Department for Transport—work on the A160 and A180 in Immingham, on the M6 in the west midlands, on the M3 in Surrey, and on the M275 in Portsmouth—with a combined contract value of more than £400 million, from which hundreds of apprenticeship places could be created. If the Government really want to expand apprenticeships, why will they not practise what they preach and implement these sensible proposals? After all, what better spur can there be for the two thirds of businesses that still do not offer apprenticeships than the knowledge that they are crucial to the Government, and also crucial to their working with the Government?

As Members have said, we need to see Government Departments themselves opening up and offering more apprenticeships. The most recent data available to us on BIS are those mentioned earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak. Spurred by the cogent arguments advanced repeatedly over the past year by my colleague in the other place, Lord Adonis, the Government should be introducing an apprenticeship fast stream for the civil service. Ministers have now announced belatedly that they will be running such a scheme, but we are still waiting to hear—and it would be interesting if we could hear today—just how committed to it individual Departments will be. The Cabinet Office, for example, was far from forthcoming when I asked parliamentary questions about this earlier this year. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition summed the position up perfectly in an article at the end of January in which he said:

“Whitehall takes 500 of the brightest graduates from our top universities every year and fast-tracks their careers on good salaries. Let’s give the same opportunities to youngsters who are ready to knuckle down and learn on the job, in tough apprenticeship schemes. It should start in the offices of ministers in the Government.”

We believe that any new apprenticeships created via this procurement route need to be high quality, a point echoed by the Doug Richard review recommendations.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. I am thinking in particular about the 16 to 18-year-olds in Oldham who are not in education, employment or training; the level there is more than 8.6%, which is well above the regional average. We have seen so many Government U-turns in the past few weeks, so is he hoping that they might do a U-turn on this issue, too?

[Mr Marsden]

We wait with bated breath to see what might occur in the Budget, and I hope that the Skills Minister might use his good offices with the Chancellor in that respect.

Labour Members believe that this apprenticeship route has to be a high-quality one. We have to have that because we have had problems in the past with the duration of apprenticeships, and it took some time for the Government to move on that. These issues of quality are being addressed by our Labour skills taskforce. It is taking forward details of our proposals, which the Leader of the Opposition announced last autumn, drawing on the practical experience of business, the further education sector and elsewhere. That is why we are seeking not only to boost the number of apprenticeship places available, but to address the situation pre-18 by introducing a new technical baccalaureate.

While the Government have been dithering nationally about how to expand apprenticeships and ignoring procurement policies, Labour local authorities have been leading the way. A number of Labour-run authorities are going ahead with public procurement to create new apprenticeships for young local people eager for those opportunities. For example, Sheffield city council has identified 233 additional apprenticeships that it can create via public procurement where it has set its requirements at £100,000. Sandwell’s council has done something similar, aiming to create just under 200 apprenticeships through public procurement in the next three years. Other councils, such as my local authority in Blackpool, are boosting numbers in other innovative ways. It already has 48 apprentices on the books, but my local council is working with other local public sector bodies, such as the police force and the NHS, to create shared apprenticeships across those bodies. One could add to that other Labour councils such as those in Reading and Plymouth that are actively engaging with local businesses to boost apprenticeship opportunities across their boroughs, as well as the city skills hubs of Manchester and Leeds.

What is telling about that story of activity in local government is that, as we have heard, even Conservative-run local authorities realise the merits of that approach. For example, Kent county council has put in place criteria whose details closely mirror ours: procurement for all contracts worth more than £1 million should create at least one additional apprenticeship place. Northamptonshire county council has also put in place mandatory requirements on all contracts over the value of £2 million. In addition, there are those in the Prime Minister’s own parliamentary party who have argued that something has to be done, with perhaps the sharpest example being the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon). Last year, that redoubtable Member made similar suggestions that government should be using public procurement to boost apprenticeships.

That shows the range of consensus on the need to act now. It is a consensus that has been built by a determination to do something to kick-start us out of a dire, flatlining economic situation, which has the potential to put thousands of young people at risk. The Opposition are advocating a useful change that has the potential to transform the life chances of thousands of young people. It offers them the opportunities they are crying out for, and sends a clear message to business that apprenticeships matter and add real value to a firm. If we will the ends, we must will the means. It is time for the Government to stop tying themselves in tortuous knots when they are put on the spot by the wise words of the Select Committee.

The Skills Minister has repeatedly said that apprenticeships are at the heart of the Government’s skills strategy. As many of his Tory colleagues in local government agree with our approach, why does he not take this modest proposal forward? He has the opportunity. We have a Department for Business, Innovation and Skills that already has a Minister with two brains and a Secretary of State in two minds about ring-fenced funding and economic growth. Now I wait with bated breath to see whether the Under-Secretary of State for Skills will be able to say the right thing for his two Departments this afternoon.

Abraham Lincoln—or perhaps it was Daniel Day-Lewis—famously said that when

“the occasion is piled high with difficulty”

we must rise to it, and

“As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew.”

That is our proposal today. When our economy and this Government’s strategy are flatlining, we must act anew. A public procurement policy for apprenticeships would start to transform the numbers and the life chances of tens of thousands of young people. It makes economic sense, but it is also the right thing to do. We believe in a one nation Britain with not only social cohesion and fairness but economic cohesion, in which apprenticeships have a firm stake. That is why we have put the proposal centre stage today and that is why I am proud to move the motion.

Children and Families Bill

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Monday 25th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I recognise what the Minister is trying to do in seeking to reform important areas of law affecting children, young people and their families. New as I am, however, I am beginning to learn that the devil is in the detail when it comes to many of this Government’s Bills. I am not alone in that view. The Children’s Commissioner for England, Maggie Atkinson, said that she supported

“the objectives of the Children and Families Bill”,

but was

“concerned about some of the detail. Some measures proposed could be interpreted as overriding the principle that all decisions are to be made in the best interests of the child”.

In preparing for today’s debate, I was deeply disappointed by the lack of an impact assessment of the full effects of the Bill. I found one on business, but I did not find any relating to how the provisions would affect the groups of children and their families to whom the Bill applies. I feel that that is deeply disturbing. Again, my views are shared by others, including the Association of School and College Leaders. Because of the Bill’s complexity and the range of areas that it covers, there is concern about whether proper parliamentary scrutiny can be given to ensure that it has no unintended consequences. I think we should listen to such organisations.

The Bill’s positive elements have been recognised, but a number of concerns have also been raised, and I would like to focus on a couple of them. Although the steps forward on adoption have been recognised, we have heard concerns about adoption and about the importance of ensuring that the interests of children are paramount in the family justice system and of the need to strengthen the independence and powers of the Children’s Commissioner for England.

If I may, I will focus in my remaining time on part 3, which deals with special educational needs. These provisions have been heralded as the biggest reforms to SEN provision in over 30 years. Replacing the dual system of assessment for children and young adults with a single system and the education, health and care plans is a positive change. I am mindful of what colleagues on the Education Committee said in their pre-legislative scrutiny. The Committee observed that

“the legislation lacks detail, without which a thorough evaluation of the likely success of the Government’s proposals is impossible”.

Although some proposals, such as the pathfinders, have been supported and taken forward, Scope and other disability charities in the Special Education Consortium have continued to express their ongoing concerns, particularly about clause 30 and the local offer. The real concern is that, as the provisions stand, they allow for no more than a directory of services, with no duty on local agencies to provide what is set out in the local offer or to define service standards, although there has been some movement there. The risk is that the Bill’s objectives in seeking to improve educational outcomes for children with SEN and disabled children and their families will not be met. There is also concern that children with less complex needs will fail to reach the threshold for new education, health and care provision in much the same way as only the adults most in need of care services are able to access them.

[Meg Hillier]

One concern I have encountered a lot in my constituency is where a child has something that is difficult to diagnose or put a name to. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that unless we get this right in the Bill, those children, their parents and their teachers will not have any better provision than is currently on offer?

[Debbie Abrahams]

I do indeed share that concern. Similar issues have been raised with me in my discussions with different charities.

We know that one in eight families has a child with SEN, and it is estimated that one in six will not be provided for under the Bill. We already know that 1.4 million children with SEN do not have a statement and will not be eligible for EHCP—education, health and care provision—under the Bill. Approximately 87% of all children with SEN are currently supported through school action or school action plus—in the provision of speech and language therapy, for example. With the abolition of these programmes, those children will rely totally on the local offer, so we must ensure that it is strengthened.

I want to refer quickly to accountability, which is still an issue in respect of these services. We need to make sure that children and their families can hold people to account and be engaged in the provision of their services, and the monitoring review of those services. Simply publishing the comments of parents and young people does not really do what is needed. We need to ensure that the engagement is meaningful, as reflected in the UN convention of the rights of the child.

This Bill is inadequate not only in the proposals it puts forward, but in its failure to recognise the policy context that surrounds it. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) spoke about that context, which includes complex legislation on welfare reforms and health system reforms, as well as massive cuts in local authority funding. It remains to be seen how well those local authorities will cope with that.

I want to conclude with a reference to one of my constituents: the mum of an eight-year-old son with Down’s syndrome. She says that taking him to all the various appointments he needs, whether for physiotherapy or speech therapy, or even for accessing an appropriate shoe service, given that he needs to wear corrective boots, has proved to be a full-time job in itself. Such demands on her time meant she was forced to give up work. As the household income has dropped with her loss of earnings, her husband has taken a higher-paid job in Scotland to make ends meet. Now the family is together only for the occasional weekend. Joanna says:

“I am not naive, I don’t expect services to exist just for me, or facilities to be for my convenience. The frustration comes from the possibility of services being made easier.”

This is an example of the stress experienced by families across the country in raising children with disabilities and special educational needs. Positive though some elements of the Bill are, it does not reassure us that the particular pressures that these families face will be addressed. I hope that the Government will look again at how to strengthen the provisions.

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to welcome the Bill, which covers such a broad range of areas. I hope Members will forgive me if I focus on special educational needs, as so many others have done.

I know from my own life story how important it is to get this right. I was one of the pre-1981 report children whose parents had to fight to get me into a special school, and then fight again to get me back into a mainstream school a few years later. The special school was not far from the Minister’s own constituency, in Hebden Green. When I was in the mainstream school, my parents had to fight to get the speech therapy I needed to make the most of being in that mainstream school.

It was with some distress and dismay that when I first got elected to this House, I found that the first three cases of my very first constituency surgery were all about parents fighting for their children to get the special educational help they needed from their schools. Thirty years on, nothing much seemed to have changed. That is why I welcome the Bill, as it starts to introduce some level of change. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), who is sadly no longer in her place. What she did with her Green Paper was to raise expectations, perhaps even to create a rod for the Government’s own back in a strange way. None the less, she needs to be congratulated on that.

I know not just from my own life story, but from what I see on the ground in Blackpool, how important this issue is. When one of our council officers—the head of inclusion and access—gave evidence during the Education Committee’s pre-legislative scrutiny process, she explained why this matters so much in Blackpool, where we have such a high transient population, with four times as many young people than the national average entering the town already having a statement—9.8% versus 2.8%. Yet Blackpool manages not to make it an adversarial experience; in fact, it has fewer tribunals than the national average. I can see that situation working itself out in my constituency surgeries and in my casework.

As always with legislation, the temptation is to focus on the elements that one is not completely happy with. I will try to resist that temptation and look at the wider picture. I am very privileged to chair the all-party group on young disabled people. What strikes me in that role is that society no longer puts a lid on expectations for our young disabled people and tries to limit what they can achieve. If anything, the only lid that is placed on their expectations is the bureaucracy in the system. Society is changing, but the structures of governance need to change as well to enable them to keep pace. That is why the Bill is so important.

When I meet groups of these people, I am struck by the fact that so many of them do not just want to go into work when they reach 18—they want to go on to university, to go and live their lives. I welcome what the Education Committee and the Minister have said about those who are in apprenticeships or are not in education, employment or training having access to EHC—education, health and care—plans. However, I have a twinge of disappointment about the fact that apparently those who want to go on to university will not have access to those plans. I share the Committee’s concern that we need greater clarity over what this provision should look like for the 19 to 25 age group and how the local offer should be structured in this regard. We have made great efforts in the draft Care and Support Bill to ensure that those who wish to attend university can take their social care package with them from their home local authority to where they seek to go to university. That was a bold and ambitious move that excited many young people, and I want to make sure that what we do in this Bill has the same level of sophistication.

Equally, I urge Ministers to look again at the issue I raised in an intervention—how we treat disabled young people who have a health need but no specific educational need. I realise that it is very difficult to place duties on the NHS. None the less, having had such a revolutionary Bill that is going to change the landscape, it would be a shame if we missed this opportunity to get it right for all our young people.

One of the big things that excited me about the Green Paper was that it finally tackled the issue of transition—the cliff edge that many young people, and their families, come to when they transfer from child services to adult services, whether they be wheelchair services, community and mental health services, or so many other services. As people reach the age of 16, child services start to tail off and there is never any confidence that adult services will then kick in. People get very concerned about that. I urge Ministers to embrace this opportunity to resolve that cliff edge. Families have a fear of the unknown because of the threat of uncertainty and fragmentation. On my reading of the Bill, children with health needs but not educational needs will not get an EHC plan. That is wrong given the spirit of the Green Paper.

I support charities such as Together for Short Lives, which represents the children’s hospice sector, and the Communications Trust, which represents people with augmentative and alternative communication, where interaction between health care and education is not just important but crucial to the role played by the machines that assist them.

I should like finally to focus on clause 69, which seeks to exclude a particular group of people for whom we, as legislators, have responsibility—people in custody in the youth justice system. Again, on my reading of the Bill—I am happy to be corrected—those in youth custody will be specifically excluded from having an EHC plan and will be frozen in a no man’s land.

[Debbie Abrahams]

Is it not the case that children who are in detention are more likely to have special educational needs than those in the population as a whole, and so denying them access to support in the Bill is a real discrimination against that group?

[Paul Maynard]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention; she is right. We must recognise that the Minister has moved substantially on the issue, but it is still important that clause 69 specifically recognises this group. Communication delays and speech and language needs lie at the heart of the offending behaviour of many of these young people, and it seems perverse to exclude them, because that will not help their rehabilitation.

Having picked out every bit of the Bill that I do not like or disagree with, it is important that I emphasise how important it is, how much I welcome it, and how pleased I am that this Minister will pilot it through, because he has a very strong personal commitment to and excellent understanding of these issues. I have great confidence that as the Bill goes through Committee much of what I am highlighting can be teased out, made clear and made fit for purpose. I want us to remember that the Green Paper raised such hopes among disabled charities, organisations and young people, who thought that it was the moment to make sure that Warnock was built on and, indeed, that many of Warnock’s inadequacies were corrected.

I welcome what the Minister has been trying to do and what I know he will continue to do. I even welcome the constructive comments from Labour Front Benchers and the shadow Secretary of State. This should not be a partisan issue—an opportunity to bash political parties over the head—because it is too important for that. I am sure that all of us in this Chamber have parents coming to our surgeries to try to get the support that their children need. This is our chance to work together to solve these problems so that in 30 years’ time we do not all have to come back again to try to make it right.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Thursday 7th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

2. In how many months net lending to businesses has (a) increased and (b) fallen since January 2011.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

12. In how many months net lending to businesses has (a) increased and (b) fallen since January 2011.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)]

Figures from the Bank of England show that between January 2011 and December 2012 lending to businesses by UK banks increased in six months, and decreased in the others. The Government and the Bank of England are working to increase lending across the economy, for example through the funding for lending scheme and the new business bank.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vince Cable]

Certainly, the decline in net lending to SMEs is a serious issue, which I frequently refer to. It is a genuine problem and Government schemes have provided support in a variety of ways, including about £7 billion of net lending and £1 billion alone from the enterprise guarantee scheme.

Before we are lectured on this, we need to go a little further back and remember who was in charge when the banks collapsed and the lending crisis erupted. The hon. Gentleman may recall, given that, like me, he has been a Member of the House for some years, the Cruickshank report of 2000, which pointed out that the banks were overcharging their business customers, providing a poor service and making excess profits. The last Government had an opportunity to reform the banking system then. They did absolutely nothing about it, which is why we are in this mess today.

[Debbie Abrahams]

Small and medium-sized enterprises in Oldham have told me how they are struggling to access finance. We now know from Bank of England data that bank lending fell by £18.6 billion last year. On top of this, SMEs were owed more than £36 billion in late payments in 2011. Will the Secretary of State back an inquiry I am launching as part of my Be Fair—Pay on Time campaign to investigate the issues associated with late payments?

[Vince Cable]

I would like to acknowledge the contribution the hon. Lady has made through debates in the House to this very important issue. The Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), has launched a significant initiative with business in order to reduce that problem. We also have a trade financing scheme, working with Kingfisher to try to ensure that credit flows through the supply chain. The key point is that credit does not depend solely on banks; it also depends on the big primes, whether in the retail sector or in manufacturing, and we are providing substantial support to small companies caught up in that problem.

A-level Reform

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The important point here is that the Russell Group has agreed to be part of this process; it wants to be involved. I think there is an increasing appetite for that among universities across the board. Universities UK has also expressed its interest because universities want to know that the students entering their institutions are well prepared. In certain subjects, academics have been very concerned about the level of preparation. They have quite often found that there is a difference between independent school students who get extra tuition and those currently doing A-levels in state schools.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

Will the Minister confirm that an impact assessment has been done on this policy change? If so, what assessment has been made of the effect on children from low-income families and black and minority ethnic communities regarding their education and career choices? Will she clarify whether this is a policy steer or an order?

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Wednesday 17th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jo Swinson]

New clause 8 will introduce sensible changes to the employment tribunal rules of procedure recommended by Mr Justice Underhill. I shall say more about the effect of those changes shortly. A number of other new clauses and amendments have been tabled both by the Government and by other Members, and I shall attempt to address them—as well as new clause 8—as comprehensively but as succinctly as possible. As Members will know, part 2 was subjected to thorough scrutiny by the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) and his Committee colleagues, and all the clauses were accepted unamended.

Contrary to some of the views expressed in Committee, these measures do nothing to affect an individual’s employment rights. Instead, they deliver on the Government’s commitment to giving businesses more confidence to take on new staff and grow. We know that employment tribunals are a continuing cause of concern for businesses and, indeed, employees, and I should be surprised if Opposition Front-Benchers tried to argue that all is working swimmingly at present. The measures in part 2 are designed to alleviate the fears and problems by encouraging the earliest possible resolution of disputes, facilitating settlement agreements to help businesses to manage their staff more effectively, and ensuring that the tribunal system itself operates efficiently for all users.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jo Swinson]

I will in due course, but I want to make a bit of progress first.

I welcome this opportunity to set out the changes that we have proposed and respond to those made by others, continuing the work of my predecessor to bring reform to the employment tribunal system. Let me begin by explaining the amendments that we are making through new clause 8, which will amend existing provisions in the Employment Tribunals Act 1996.

Following his fundamental review of the rules of procedure for employment tribunals, Mr Justice Underhill made a number of recommendations about how the rules might be improved. In some instances, he felt that the primary legislation would need to be amended before desirable changes in the procedural rules could be made. These changes will help to achieve more effective and targeted case management which will benefit all tribunal users.

The first change involves deposit orders. Tribunals can currently require a party to pay a deposit of up to £1,000 as a condition of continuing to proceed with a weak claim. However, a judge cannot currently use a deposit order to weed out the weak elements of a particular claim, and must instead attach a deposit order to the entire claim as a condition of proceeding. That lack of flexibility does not aid effective case management. Enabling judges to make better-targeted deposit orders will give both parties a clear sense of where they should focus their efforts, encouraging a more realistic approach to settlement, and I believe that it will also lead to greater use of such orders.

The second change relates to the recoverability of witness expenses for people who choose to represent themselves at tribunals and seek a preparation time order in respect of their work on the case. An oddity in the current costs regime places people who represent themselves at tribunals at a disadvantage, as a tribunal cannot make a costs order for witness expenses and a preparation time order in respect of the same party. We are amending the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 to remove that unnecessary restriction.

The final change deals with the recoverability of lay representatives’ costs. Mr Justice Underhill considered that those who chose to be represented by a non-lawyer, and who had paid for that service and advice, should not be put at a disadvantage when a tribunal concluded that the other party’s conduct meant that a costs order was warranted. I agree that those who choose to engage lay representatives rather than lawyers should not be disadvantaged when it comes to the award of costs, and I intend to use the existing powers in section 13 of the Employment Tribunals Act to change the rules of procedure in order to allow for such costs orders. The new clause helps to clarify the scope of section 13 by introducing a definition of the word “representative”.

Let me now deal with new clauses 1 and 2, tabled by the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark), which amend clause 15. Along with the organisation Public Concern at Work, she has been a powerful advocate on this subject, and we discussed it recently during a Westminster Hall debate that she had initiated.

I think we can all agree that, in an ideal world, legislation for whistleblowing would not be needed at all. In such a world, all employers would be open and receptive when an issue was raised, and would not seek to silence or drive out a person who brought important matters to their attention. However, as we know, such enlightened approaches to whistleblowing are not universal, so legal protection is required. We are equally keen to ensure that the protection offered by the public interest disclosure legislation is not abused by those who seek to rely on it for purely self-interested reasons. Clause 15, which has already been debated in Committee, will ensure that the whistleblowing provisions cannot be used to advance purely personal interests.

New clause 1 addresses a different aspect of the public interest disclosure legislation. It proposes the removal of the good faith test, which has been in place since the legislation was introduced. That would mean that individual whistleblowers would retain the benefit of employment protection even if their reasons for blowing the whistle were malicious, if they deliberately set out to cause commercial damage, or if they acted out of a desire for personal revenge.

There is clearly a balance to be struck. We are conscious of the recommendations of Dame Janet Smith’s inquiry into the tragic circumstances of the Shipman case. She suggested that the good faith test be removed to encourage more whistleblowers to come forward. We also recognise that the motivations of whistleblowers are not always clear-cut. Personal feelings, particularly when a relationship has broken down, sometimes make it difficult to understand the intentions of the person who is making a disclosure. Having said that, I should add that, as we have already made clear, we believe that the legislation is working well overall, and that the good faith test serves an important purpose.

We are also keen to avoid making a change that could allow individuals access to an uncapped award when their motives for blowing the whistle were malicious, and I therefore do not believe that there is a clear-cut case for removing the good faith test. However, I recognise that the hon. Lady has raised an important issue relating to this specific element of the public interest disclosure regime, and we will continue to look closely at the policy aims of the test to ensure that they are still being achieved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Swinson]

I cannot make it clear enough that this is not no-fault dismissal. The proposals in the Beecroft report would have removed at a stroke the employment rights of 30 million individuals, whereas what we propose is a voluntary and mutually beneficial process that will end the employment relationship only if the employee agrees to it. That is entirely different. The suggestions that are being made are not founded in fact. The hon. Gentleman says that we should consider how things proceed, and compromise agreements have been on the statute book for some time.

[Debbie Abrahams]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jo Swinson]

I will finish answering this intervention and take the intervention from the hon. Member for Edinburgh South, and then I will be happy to take an intervention from the hon. Lady.

Over the past year—at least over several months—the Government have considered how the process could be improved and have come forward with our proposals. The consultation on exactly how the agreements should take place is running and is open until 23 November. The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead is free to input his views and I encourage him to do so. Just as we have considered the current scheme, I am sure that if the scheme is found not to work in future years, any Government would be happy to reconsider it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Swinson]

I do not think so. Clearly it is important that the conversation is conducted in a mature and respectful way, and the guidance, on which we are consulting and which will include things such as guideline letters and templates, is expressly designed to make that easier for employers. The problem the hon. Gentleman raises is precisely the opposite of what the proposals will address, because now, where protected conversations can happen if there is a dispute, that creates a perverse incentive to employers to try to manufacture a dispute. Hopefully, the proposed measures will make it much easier for people to have that conversation without having to pretend that there is a dispute where none exists.

[Debbie Abrahams]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way—eventually. I fear that this is another example of poor legislation from this Government. As I understand it, the provisions regarding protected conversations will not apply in certain conditions, including where an employer is deemed to have behaved in an improper way, yet there is no definition of “improper” in legislation. Will the hon. Lady comment on that?

While I have the chance, I will make the intervention I wanted to make earlier. We know from the OECD that the UK is one of the most lightly regulated countries in the world, next to the United States and Canada. Exactly what evidence does the Minister have to draw on that the measures will improve growth?

[Jo Swinson]

The hon. Lady is being slightly uncharitable in saying that I gave way “eventually”. I took her intervention immediately on finishing my response to her hon. Friends. My approach is to take interventions because the function of Report stage is to ensure that amendments receive proper scrutiny, and I am determined to make sure that hon. Members can have those discussions and receive reassurances where there are concerns.

On the question about settlement agreements and the protections that remain, obviously the agreements should not be used in a way that results in an employee feeling under pressure or that they have to take the agreement. If there is any bullying behaviour or suggestion of discrimination, of course there would be no protection for that conversation. The hon. Lady asks about the definition of “improper”. The consultation on that is under way, and I encourage her to make her views known to it. In general terms, our aim is to reflect, without prejudice, unambiguous impropriety, which would include cases of discrimination and bullying, where there would be no protection for the employer.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 83 would preserve the upper limit of £5,000 but seeks to remove the cap that restricts the penalty to 50% of the award, thereby allowing the tribunal to impose a penalty of any amount between £100 and £5,000, the minimum and the maximum. Removing the 50% cap would remove some of the certainty that businesses have over potential liability if the matter goes to a hearing and, as a consequence, might affect their decision to defend a claim. This is a new measure that the previous Government did not think to try. We believe that it will have a positive impact, but we of course need to see how it works in practice. If the amount of the fine proves insufficient to encourage greater compliance, or indeed if it has a detrimental effect on businesses defending a claim, we have the power to vary the limit by secondary legislation and we will use it.

[Debbie Abrahams]

Will the Minister tell us what the evidence is for those caps?

[Jo Swinson]

As I have said, this is a new measure and these are the figures we have put in place. I do not know what figures the hon. Lady thinks should be set. It is important that there is some certainty for businesses and so, after progressing with this measure and putting it in place, we can then review it and see how it works. By ensuring that the specific amount is not set in primary legislation, we will have the ability to amend it through secondary legislation, which will give the required flexibility. Amendments 72 and 83 would undermine the objectives of the financial penalty regime and so I am unable to accept them.

The final amendment to clause 14, amendment 73, tabled by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, seeks to specify the purpose for which any moneys accruing to the Exchequer from the imposition of financial penalties should be used. Hon. Members will know that the Government already fund the activities to which the amendment refers through ACAS, with an annual grant in aid allocation of about £45 million a year. As my predecessor made clear in Committee, the purpose of the financial penalty is not to raise revenue for the Exchequer. It would not be appropriate to expect ACAS to function with some element of its annual funding being dependent on what is ultimately a discretionary decision by a tribunal. The existing mechanism for funding ACAS is the right one, so I am unable to accept the amendment.

Amendment 94 seeks to address a point we covered in Committee. I understand that its aim is to prevent a disclosure relating to a breach of a private contract from being a qualifying disclosure for the purposes of a whistleblowing claim, unless it is clearly in the public interest. My predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk, explained in Committee our reasons for not wanting to take that route. We believe that such an approach would have the potential for unintended consequences and would not in itself address the concerns raised by the Parkins v. Sodexho decision. For example, the issue in that case could have been reframed as a health and safety issue, with similar issues then arising in relation to the disclosures of minor breaches of health and safety legislation, which are of no interest to the wider public. Not only are we closing the loophole identified in the Parkins v. Sodexho case, but by introducing the public interest test we are removing the potential for the opportunistic use of the protection. That will prevent any cases similar to the Parkins v. Sodexho case in the areas that would otherwise be uncovered by the amendment.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Tuesday 16th October 2012 Commons Chamber

As a consequence of repealing the general duty in section 3, we need to amend section 12, to require the EHRC to monitor and report on changes and developments in society that are consistent with its core equality and diversity and human rights functions.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

What message does the Minister think this gives when one in two young black men, compared with one in four of their white counterparts, are unemployed? How can she justify this downgrading of the EHRC in such conditions?

[Jo Swinson]

I accept the hon. Lady’s genuine concern about the issue she has raised: there is far too much of an equality gap in our society and between young white and black men. Of course, the Government are committed to tackling that. However, I question whether she really believes that section 3 of the 2006 Act will do that. The message that this sends is that this Government are committed to equality but focused on really making a difference. [Interruption.] I hear the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna), murmuring various things from a sedentary position, but if he really thinks that the EHRC, which was bequeathed to us by the previous Government, was functioning well and was effective, I do not know what planet he is living on. We should consider what has been said about the organisation’s effectiveness. Its accounts were not being signed off and it was wasting money; £866,000 was spent on a website that was never launched. It was not functioning well. It is important that we focus it on its specific duties, and that is what our amendments will do.

--- Later in debate ---

I turn to our third main objection to clause 52. The Bill is supposed to promote long-term growth and simplify regulation, but the clause will achieve neither aim. Leaving aside the issue of whether our fundamental rights should be sacrificed at the altar of growth, no evidence has been produced during the passage of the Bill showing that the measures on the commission will promote growth.

[Debbie Abrahams]

It was rather telling that, in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), the Secretary of State said that this was just legislative tidying up. It is absolutely outrageous.

[Mr Umunna]

I agree that it is absolutely outrageous. Furthermore, on the issue of simplifying regulation, let me say this to Government Members: the promotion and protection of equality and human rights is not, and should not be seen as, regulation. The unrelenting pursuit of these things helps to make this the fair and decent country that Britain is to live in. It is something that we should celebrate.

What is the Government’s defence? What is their justification for pressing ahead with including clause 52 in the Bill? In Committee, the Minister’s predecessor—she did the same today—sought to rely heavily on the comments of the commission’s general counsel in the public evidence session. I have read that evidence in full, and it is true that at the end of it he said:

“The commission is not opposed to the Bill.”––[Official Report, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Public Bill Committee, 19 June 2012; c. 80, Q180.]

As the general counsel made clear, however, it is not for him or the commission to take a position on the Bill. It is a political matter for the Government. That said, he made some interesting comments to which, I note, the Minister did not refer. He was clear that resources were being cut. He said that

“if the commission is given fewer resources, we will have fewer staff and less money to do the work that we would want to do.”––[Official Report, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Public Bill Committee, 19 June 2012; c. 74, Q162.]—[Interruption.]

From a sedentary position, the Under-Secretary of State for Skills, the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock), says, “Who racked up the debt?” I do not think that we can put a price on human rights and equality in this country.

On the commission’s remit, the general counsel was unequivocal. He said:

“This Bill reduces our powers and our remit… We would prefer to keep the remit we have, so we have not promoted the amendments in the Bill.”

Finally, on the repeal of the general duty in section 3 of the Equality Act 2006, he said that the section

“sets out a vision for a kind of society that I guess most people here would want to live in”––[Official Report, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Public Bill Committee, 19 June 2012; c. 79, Q176-79.]

and confirmed that the repeal of the duty “lowers the vision”.

Before moving on, it would be remiss of me not to turn to the Minister’s comments about the commission’s recent problems. Yes, the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Public Accounts Committee have been very critical of the commission, and, yes, the National Audit Office has qualified its accounts, but none of these inquiries concluded that its remit should be changed in the way the Government are doing in the Bill. The most recent accounts were unqualified, and the running of the organisation has not been helped by the Government preventing it from recruiting a permanent chief executive and senior management team for more than two years. These recent problems are hopefully in the past and certainly do not justify the winding down of the commission.

The Minister, and the Secretary of State in his letter to me earlier this month, said that it was not the Government’s intention to water down, wind down or abolish the commission. Nevertheless, we know that many Government Members would like to see the back of it.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

With the greatest respect, I do not think that that is the case. I know John well—he is an old friend—and I do not believe that he used that exact form of words. What the organisation said was that it was for the House to decide on the Bill. I think that what the staff and board of the EHRC are trying to do is survive, and I think that some things have been said simply so that they can survive.

[Debbie Abrahams]

The briefing from the EHRC uses very neutral language, but it nevertheless expresses blatant concern about, in particular, the removal of important functions such as the helpline, funding for voluntary organisations, and legal advice. The idea that people should have to pay to issue a challenge when they have been discriminated against is outrageous.

[John McDonnell]

I agree. I think that what John Wadham and others in the organisation have said is that they will do their best and will live with what legislation there is, but I also think that when they gave evidence to the Committee, their intention was not to support the Bill. It is for us to decide.