Higher Education and Research Bill

Kirsten Oswald Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Tuesday 19th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

The SNP joins other parties in having concerns about the Bill. We do not dispute that some aspects of higher education need reviewing, and we welcome attempts to increase diversity and access to higher education. The Bill aims to transform the HE landscape, but it does not go far enough in terms of diversity, and it poses a serious threat to the international reputation of the UK HE sector. To press ahead with the Bill at a time when HE is already experiencing great uncertainty due to Brexit is reckless and will cause further damage.

There are significant differences between the higher education sector in Scotland and its counterparts in the rest of the UK. The SNP is supportive of the UK Government’s proposals to improve the standard of teaching through the teaching excellence framework, but it stresses the need to consider Scotland’s unique educational provision. Although Scottish HE providers will not be bound by the Bill, there are concerns that by not participating in the TEF, Scottish universities will be disadvantaged when attracting international students, who are a crucial source of funding for all HE institutions.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

I came to this place after working in an educational institution, and I echo my hon. Friend’s sentiments about the value of international students. Does she agree that that value is much more than just financial, and that all our students will lose out if attracting international students becomes a problem?

[Carol Monaghan]

I agree 100% with my hon. Friend. Diversity in our institutions and what we learn from overseas students enrich the experience for all students in higher education.

International students who are considering a move to a UK university could view an English university with a strong TEF rating as offering a better experience than a Scottish university with no TEF rating. Since the TEF will be grounded in quality assurance scores, and given that Scotland has a distinct quality assurance system, recognition of Scotland’s enhancement-led institutional reviews, and benchmarking those reviews against TEF ratings, would allow institutions in Scotland to continue to compete on a level playing field when attracting international students.

It is important to exercise caution around the use of metrics to judge quality of teaching. Certain metrics—graduate salary or student satisfaction, for example—can drive university behaviour in a negative way, as higher education institutions are incentivised to sacrifice certain subjects in favour of areas that produce more positive results in the criteria being measured. Courses that are more challenging and perhaps score lower in student satisfaction metrics—for example, vital STEM courses—could end up being dropped because they do not measure well on the TEF metrics. If metrics are to be used, it is important for our economy that they are carefully honed to ensure that the degrees being taken and the skills developed still meet the overall needs of society.

We should view with caution the drive towards marketisation of the student experience. Giving the power to award degrees to new untested providers on day one is a concern if there is no clear mechanism to ensure that those providers have a track record of delivering quality courses to students. Plans that assist the entry of “for profit” providers and award them with the title of “university” will be damaging as the UK competes internationally for students. Perhaps most importantly, those new institutions, which often have no record, will compete for significant numbers of students while allowing them to cherry-pick profitable courses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carol Monaghan]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a useful intervention because the metrics used by UCAS for higher education in Scotland consider only entries directly from school. In Scotland, however, a large number of students—particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds—take alternative routes in.

Tuition fees were trebled in 2012, but there is no evidence to suggest that there has been an improvement in teaching quality or in student satisfaction. The SNP strongly opposes any further increase in fees. We continue to support a system in which entry to university is based on the ability to learn and never on the ability to pay. We have a strong and principled record of opposing increases in tuition fees throughout the UK, and we will reject any Bill that seeks to increase the financial burden on students.

I am happy that the Secretary of State recognises that allowing the marketisation of higher education will increase the possibility of institutions exiting the market. The National Union of Students has raised concerns about the first responsibility of providers that collapse, and asks whether providers will place their responsibilities to their shareholders above their responsibilities to their students. Students might get monetary recompense when a provider collapses, but there is no recognition of the time wasted by students who start a course with an institution that subsequently fails. That time is indeed money for those students, whose careers and earning potential could be delayed while they seek an alternative provider. They are being asked to gamble with their fees and, more importantly, their time. The SNP has at its heart a commitment to higher education, and the idea of prioritising profit over education remains alien to us.

The new emphasis on participation, as well as access, is a positive measure. Plans to place a transparency duty on universities to publish data for students based on their gender, ethnicity and social background are a step in the right direction. I am also pleased that there will be scope to extend student financing to students who do not accept interest-incurring loans, thus creating a sharia-compliant manner of financing for students. But if the Government are going to meet their worthy targets of doubling the proportion of people from disadvantaged backgrounds going to university and of increasing the number of black and minority ethnic students going to university, the transparency revolution must also ensure meaningful outcomes and accountability.

[Kirsten Oswald]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should look closely at the interaction between the further and higher education sectors in Scotland and take full account of the way in which they work to encourage participation by groups whose participation is currently limited?

[Carol Monaghan]

Absolutely. Those arrangements can benefit single parents and part-time students, who are often unable to access higher education in the same way that they could in the past.

Clear measures and pathways to enable disadvantaged students to progress have been steadily eroded. The removal of education maintenance allowance and maintenance grants for students from disadvantaged backgrounds, coupled with cuts to the disabled students allowance, do not match the Government’s ambitions in this area. Thankfully, the picture in Scotland continues to improve, and positive steps have been taken to ensure that access continues to increase. Young people from a disadvantaged background in Scotland are now more likely to participate in higher education than they have ever been in the past. In 2014, 41% of students from disadvantaged backgrounds were able to access higher education in Scotland.

Moving on to research, the commitment to a dual support system for research funding and to the Haldane principle have been widely welcomed by the research community. However, proposals in the Bill to reform the UK research councils could have implications for higher education institutions in Scotland, and we have concerns about the possible short and long-term consequences for Scotland’s research base. The retention of the seven disciplinary research councils is welcome, as mergers or changes to that structure could prove distracting to the research councils and could ultimately have a negative impact on the UK’s research capability. The Royal Society of Edinburgh has said:

“The RSE welcomes the statement that the individual research councils continue to hold their own budgets and provide the leadership for their own disciplines in an autonomous fashion.”

The creation of UK Research and Innovation in the context of a science and research budget will potentially give greater co-ordination across the research councils and we hope that it will offer a stronger voice to the research community in its interaction with the Government. Scotland currently performs well in attracting funding from research councils for grants, studentships and fellowships, with the latest recorded figures showing that Scotland attracted 13% of the UK total in 2012-13. However, research council spending on infrastructure in Scotland in that period amounted to only 5% of UK spending. Similarly, only 7% of Innovate UK funding is spent in Scotland.

We are concerned that the establishment of the UKRI could lead to a lack of consideration among the research councils and Innovate UK’s decision-making bodies of Government priorities and research needs in Scotland and the other devolved nations. Scotland’s research interests and priorities will be better served if the new UKRI board has experience and understanding of the research and innovation landscape and policy across Scotland—as well as the rest of the UK. We therefore ask that the devolved Administrations have representation on the board.

Children’s Homes

Kirsten Oswald Excerpts

Tuesday 19th April 2016 Westminster Hall

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship and to participate in this debate, Mrs Gillan. I also commend the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) on securing this debate on an important topic. It has been interesting to listen to the contributions so far. A number of important points have been made.

So far—I am sure this will continue—there has been clear agreement that it is vital to ensure that care is provided in the most effective and appropriate way for all of our looked-after children. I appreciate that this debate has an English perspective, and I will focus to some extent on what I have heard today and on what differences there are between how things work here and how they work in Scotland. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) said, it is useful that we can all listen to one another, because it is vital that lessons are learned and that best practice is shared in all corners of the United Kingdom, and more widely, on such an important issue. Of course there are no easy answers, but we must appreciate that much can be done.

This topic should concern everyone. The hon. Members who have spoken, including the hon. Member for Stockport, have noted the vulnerability of many of the children who find themselves being looked after. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran pointed out, all those children are particularly vulnerable. They all deserve our care and concern, and we have a collective responsibility, particularly in this place, to be as aware as possible of the issues facing them in order to facilitate the best possible outcomes and safeguards, as the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) said, for these most vulnerable children.

Local authorities have a responsibility to provide support to our looked-after children and vulnerable young people. We know that a young person might be looked after for a number of reasons, including neglect, abuse, complex disability requiring specialist care or involvement in the youth justice system. Those are all challenging situations for young people and merit our support. I was heartened to hear my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran and the hon. Member for Rochdale refer to the positive intentions and hard work of many who work in and with the sector. It is vital.

Looked-after children have often had to deal with myriad challenges in their lives, so we should take seriously our obligation to minimise those challenges rather than add to them. Where possible, for instance, avenues other than children’s home accommodation might be more suitable to the needs of the children concerned. For instance, as we have heard, kinship care might be possible. Kinship care is not always fully understood and can be far more challenging than many people realise. For that reason, the SNP Scottish Government have provided additional support to kinship carers and were the first to introduce kinship care payments to ensure that children looked after by relatives, which I acknowledge is not always possible, are entitled, as they should be, to the same support as those placed with foster care families.

As my hon. Friend said, I am enthusiastic about the £10.1 million in support that the SNP Government provided to councils last year to increase kinship care allowances. Importantly, we have also extended support to eligible children on the edge of care, who are subject to what will be known from this month as a kinship care order. Because vulnerable children come in all varieties, we must consider their needs as a whole in deciding how best to deal with them.

As we have heard from a number of speakers, the circumstances leading to a child or young person being looked after or taken into the home of a relative can be heartbreaking, confusing and complex for the family as well as the child. If we can encourage a family relationship that provides some stability and support, we must do so, but like moving into care, such situations are significant and involve huge upheaval, and we need proper frameworks in place. The additional investment in Scotland recognises that we need to make practical provision for people who have had to struggle more than they should, in order to provide the stability that such children need and that some of the most vulnerable people in our society deserve.

Anne Swartz, chair of the Scottish Kinship Care Alliance, has applauded that way forward and rightly commended kinship carers’ tireless efforts to raise the bar. I applaud them as well as her for their efforts. It is important that such work continues. I look forward to hearing more about the work between the Scottish Kinship Care Alliance and the Scottish Government on that issue.

However, kinship care often might not be possible. Due to the variety of situations involved, some children might have to be looked after in children’s homes, and additional considerations need to be taken into account there. The hon. Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) rightly pointed out that in some cases, the experience of children looked after in children’s homes can be very positive, and I agree. It is absolutely true, and we must not lose sight of it, but we must also acknowledge and work on the genuine issues and decide the best way forward.

Any action that we can take to minimise additional complication in the lives of children in such situations and maximise stability and support is vital, especially if we do so at the earliest stage possible, as it can have a profound impact on children’s lives. On the basis that a significant number of children in Scotland and the UK are affected by this debate, we must consider the matter as a whole and where the issues might be, so that we can move forward.

In England, the number of children being looked after is rising, which is not what any of us want. In the year ending 31 March 2015, nearly 70,000 children were looked after by local authorities in England, and the absolute number of looked-after children has increased by 6% since 2011. That number has increased steadily over the past seven years, and is now higher than at any point since 1985.

[Ann Coffey]

I am always anxious to learn from Scotland’s experience, because I am a Scot, but I have been waiting to hear the hon. Lady share experiences of accommodating children in children’s homes in Scotland. What observations does she have about the children being placed in those homes, and how far those children’s homes are from their home authority? What are the Scottish Government overcoming, and how do they work with the private sector? That is the focus of the debate.

[Kirsten Oswald]

I will come to some of the points raised by the hon. Lady, particularly the issue of distance, which I know is a concern of hers.

Most looked-after children in England are between 10 and 15 years old. More boys than girls are looked after, and the gender distribution seems relatively unchanging. Although the majority of the looked-after population is white, children from black and minority ethnic backgrounds appear to be over-represented in the looked-after population. Those figures are concerning. Those are our children, and we must be conscious of the impact on their lives.

As the hon. Member for Stockport and my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran said, things in Scotland might be different—useful progress has been made in recent years—but we must all consider what needs to be done and can be done at any time, because there is always progress to be made. I am pleased that under the Scottish Government, the number of children in the care system has dropped for the third consecutive year. It means that there is a possibility that we are taking action earlier in children’s lives to address some concerns before they escalate.

Between August 2014 and July 2015, the number of looked-after children in Scotland decreased by 1%, and the number of children on the child protection register decreased by 4%. We recently introduced a successful programme to help find permanent homes for vulnerable youngsters, and the Centre for Excellence for Looked-After Children in Scotland will receive around £580,000 a year to support improvements in helping looked-after children find a permanent home, because we have seen the positive outcomes of doing so.

The permanence and care excellence programme aims to find permanent homes for children in care. It has been piloted by Aberdeen city and Renfrewshire councils, and importantly, it brings together multi-agency staff teams to build capacity so that we can continue to improve service and outcomes, which the hon. Member for Stockport was rightly concerned about, for some of our most vulnerable young people. I think we agree that it is vital that, wherever possible, children should be able to achieve a permanent home, including through family rehabilitation where appropriate, at the earliest opportunity.

Of course, there are still children and young people who spend too long being looked after or on the child protection register. Sometimes it is appropriate to consider children’s homes and how we might provide better support, and sometimes we must acknowledge that that support needs to extend beyond what it might have been traditionally. I echo my hon. Friend’s sentiments about the positive impact of extending the right to stay in foster, kinship or residential care settings up to the age of 21, and supporting care leavers up to the age of 26 to help them move to independent living. When children cannot live at home, we owe it to them to help them find a stable, loving environment where possible and move forward in their lives as they get older.

[Patricia Gibson]

Perhaps one of the defining differences between England and Scotland is that in Scotland there has been far greater emphasis in the past five to 10 years than ever before on supporting families, using kinship care where appropriate or foster care, and moving away from children’s homes wherever another solution can be found.

[Kirsten Oswald]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I agree with her. The hon. Member for Rochdale also emphasised that it is very important that the whole range of options for each child is fully considered. I acknowledge the great eloquence of the hon. Member for Stockport on the topic of authority placements. I sympathise with her concerns about the potential for increased difficulties for some children who may find themselves in such situations. I think she is correct that children accommodated far from home may be particularly vulnerable. I am concerned about some of the pull factors that may lead them into potentially damaging and dangerous situations. She made the point very well—she was passionate about this—that there is the potential for a significant impact on these children.

However, I acknowledge the point made by the hon. Member for Rochdale that on occasion there may be sound reasons for distant placements. The Education Committee was very thoughtful in its assessment of the situation, and I look forward to hearing more when the report that was referred to earlier comes out.

In contrast with England, I think there has been some progress in Scotland in recent years, which it is useful to look at. The number of children in the care system has dropped for the third consecutive year. However, in our aspirations, I think we are all of one mind here. I hope that our shared desire to see the best possible outcomes for all of our children can lead to further progress and lead us to listen carefully to one another. We must always remember that children who need to be looked after, in care or in the situations we have discussed today, face challenges that we, their peers, and wider society often struggle to understand. We need to make sure that our systems are in place to give them the best help possible at the earliest possible stage to lay the trust and foundation for a successful and happy life.

Trade Union Bill

Kirsten Oswald Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Brennan]

I am sure that many of those human rights implications will be examined further in the other place, although the unfortunate time constraints prevent us from doing so here. No doubt many of those in the other place will consider the Bill with a great deal of interest.

Under current legislation, trade union workplace representatives have a right to reasonable paid time off to perform duties, which has huge benefits for employees and employers alike. Clause 13 could allow the Government to set a cap on the percentage of the employer’s pay bill that could be invested in facility time. It would also give the Government power to impose an arbitrary limit on the amount of time that union officials could spend not just negotiating improved pay and conditions, but training, promoting learning opportunities for the workforce, accompanying people to grievance and disciplinary proceedings, and carrying out health and safety duties.

Furthermore, as was pointed out in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, the clause establishes a democratic deficit. First, Ministers will be able to use secondary legislation to restrict or repeal trade union rights, so this place will have no opportunity to amend that legislation. Secondly, the clause will prevent democratically elected devolved Administrations from deciding how to manage their employment relations in their workplaces, and how to engage with their own staff. Thirdly, it will enable the Government to pick and choose politically which local authorities it will force to impose a cap. That is an extremely dangerous precedent.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the “reserved powers” elements of the Bill show that the Government intend to use that opportunity?

[Kevin Brennan]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right; I do not think that those provisions would be in the Bill if the Government did not intend to use them. Parliament should not grant the Government those reserved powers on any assumption other than the assumption that they intend to use them. Conservative Members should think very carefully about what they are granting in this Bill.

There are significant questions to be asked about the legal basis of such a change in relation to European Union law on health and safety representatives, on the rights of trade union representatives to facility time during consultations on collective redundancies, on outsourcing, and on rights protected by the European convention on human rights and the International Labour Organisation conventions. Moreover, according to research commissioned in 2007 by the Department of Trade and Industry—now the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills—workplaces with facility arrangements have lower voluntary exit rates, which leads to significant savings in recruitment costs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

As ever, my hon. Friend brings his vast experience of these matters to bear in the debate.

Our amendment 9 would ensure that the ban on check-off arrangements would not apply to services that were wholly or partly devolved. In Committee, the Government introduced a new clause—it is now clause 14 of the Bill—to prevent all public sector employers from deducting union subscriptions via the payroll. The proposed ban is clearly designed to target union finances and to make it harder for individuals, including lower-paid workers, to access union representation in the workplace. Under the clause, the Government will be able to introduce regulations imposing a ban on check-off arrangements across the entire public sector.

The Government claim that that will save the taxpayer £6 million, but many unions already cover the cost of check-off services. There is a real risk that if the ban on check-off services comes into effect, the Government— and therefore the taxpayer—will actually incur costs, potentially including legal costs arising from the need to compensate trade union members for the loss of their contractual right to have their union subscription deducted at source.

The proposed ban on check-off arrangements has been introduced without consultation with employers, without engagement with the unions and without any proper assessment of its impact on employment relations. It was not in the Conservative party’s manifesto or in the Queen’s Speech, and there was no reference to it in any of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills consultations or the impact assessments that accompanied the Bill. I note the concern that has been expressed by Conservative Members on this matter in amendments that we will consider later today.

[Kirsten Oswald]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, when many organisations already make provision for payroll deductions for credit unions, charitable giving, cycle schemes and for many other purposes, it is an absolute farce for the Government to suggest that it places a burden on such organisations to make deductions for trade union subscriptions?

[Kevin Brennan]

I have to disagree with the hon. Lady: it is a tragedy rather than a farce that the Government are doing this. I understand the point that she makes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kirsten Oswald Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

15. What representations he has received from the further and higher education sectors on the number of students from abroad studying in the UK.

[The Minister for Universities and Science (Joseph Johnson)]

We have built a world-class university system in the United Kingdom. According to data published today following a survey, we have 10 of the world’s top 50 universities and four of the world’s top 10, and we warmly welcome the growing number of international students who choose to study at them. As I made clear in my first speech in my current role at the Going Global conference, there is no cap on the number of genuine international students who can come to study in the UK. However, it is right that we continue to seek to drive out abuse, and to tackle it wherever it exists in our system.

[Kirsten Oswald]

What economic assessment has the Minister made of the impact on the Scottish economy and the Scottish further education sector of the tier 4 regulations?

[Joseph Johnson]

International students who come to this country bring significant benefits to our higher education system, which is why there is no cap on international student numbers and the Government have no intention of introducing one. Our further education system also benefits significantly from the 19,000 or so international FE students in this country.

Trade Union Bill

Kirsten Oswald Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

I agree with my hon. Friend. In today’s world, it is important that we maintain a competitive economy and increase employment, and having trade union legislation that is updated for that modern economy is vital if trade unions are to ensure their relevance in today’s economy.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Rishi Sunak]

I am sorry, but I would like to make some progress.

I was proud to see that it was the original one nation Conservative Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli who first legalised the picket line. That is a legacy that I, and I am sure my colleagues on the Front Bench, have no intention of turning away from. In fact I commend the majority of unions who work successfully with the police and other authorities to ensure safe, lawful and constructive picket lines. But if those picket lines become a means to intimidate non-striking workers and impact their families, something has gone wrong. Intimidation or harassment of individuals is simply not acceptable in today’s Britain.

--- Later in debate ---

[Oliver Dowden]

Of course strikes are intended to be disruptive, but one of the fallacies that has been put forward by Labour Members is that the Bill proposes to take away people’s right to strike. It simply seeks to balance the interests of the workers in the trade union against those of other workers who are subjected to the effects of the strike.

[Kirsten Oswald]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the chief executive of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has suggested that the Bill is dealing with problems of the past and has nothing to do with the current situation?

[Oliver Dowden]

The hon. Lady might say that, but recent analysis shows that in the past four years, 3 million days have been lost to strike action. I am not content with the impact of that on my constituents. Hertsmere is close to London, and when there is a tube strike or a train strike, my constituents are massively adversely affected. I am not saying that that should never happen, but the Bill will rightly set a balance in three important respects.

First, the Bill states that if a strike is to be called, there will have to be a vote of at least 50% in favour of it. If the strike action is to be taken by those working in core public services, such as transport or education, four out of every 10 people in that union will have to vote in favour of it. Contrary to the assertions of Labour Members, this will not stop strikes happening. Indeed, the latest analysis shows that between 50% and 60% of strikes would still go ahead under the new legislation, but we must rebalance the interests of the workers who are trying to serve their communities with those who are going on strike.

The second important principle relates to workers in my constituency and elsewhere who are members of trade unions but who do not necessarily share the goals of the Labour party.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to take part in this important debate. It has been interesting listening to the contributions of other hon. Members and, in particular, to the excellent speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens). I hope to make a contribution from a slightly different perspective from that of some of my colleagues today.

Before being elected to this place, I spent all my career working in human resource management. In the interests of transparency, I should say that I am a member of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. I worked for many years in a job where I sat as part of the management side in negotiations with trade unions, so I come to this debate with an outlook developed at least partly as a result of my professional background. I am contributing as someone who has had to make difficult decisions when dealing with challenging employment issues, including collective redundancy negotiations and industrial action.

I also come here, however, as someone who knows that the most challenging situations and all the difficult discussions were entirely more productive and more effective, and carried more weight, because they were dealt with in partnership with trade unions. I did not always agree with my trade union counterparts, and they certainly did not always agree with me, but that is surely the point: sometimes there will be different perspectives, and that is entirely healthy and appropriate. It is clear that when tough decisions have to be made, communication is the key to an effective and productive workplace culture. We do need to accept, however, that occasionally we will not agree, no matter how much discussion we have had—that is a fact of life—and no Bill will make employers and staff agree on everything.

What this Bill will do is: ensure that any disagreement is squashed by management, without any constructive dialogue; render any dialogue that there is futile; and ensure that the important and constructive voices of staff are lost, drowned in a welter of arguments about minutiae of process or brushed aside. This Bill is a recipe for turning disagreement into conflict, and for escalating a short-term problem into a fundamental break in relationships in the workplace. Interfering in the employment relationship with this restrictive and provocative Bill is a backward step. It appears to be driven more by ideology, and by malice towards trade unions and their members, than by any desire to improve industrial relations.

We have already heard about the leading academics in industrial relations who wrote to the newspapers describing the proposals as “draconian” and “perverse”. They recognise the positive contributions of unions to performance, improvement and innovation in the workplace, and they decry the Government’s proposals as undermining the ability of unions to protect terms and conditions, and leading to the loss of employee voice. They are right to point out that this Bill will also have an impact on those who are not members of trade unions. They say that

“it will feed into the labour market by increasing endemic low pay and insecure terms and conditions of employment among non-unionised workers.”

Even the Chancellor is now persuaded that low pay is a problem that we have to grapple with, so we must wonder why the Government are so keen to introduce this Bill. If they were serious about looking at the relationships between employees and their representatives, they would focus on how to engage and involve employees and unions in increasing productivity, through fairer and supportive rights for workers. If we look at the current levels of industrial action, as summarised by the Library, we see that it is difficult to fathom what reasons, other than ideological ones, the Government can possibly have for seeking to make these changes. The Government sell themselves as being interested in productivity and business, but these proposals run entirely contrary to that ethos. The Bill introduces unnecessary new and complex bureaucracy: it will increase costs for unions and employers, as legal disputes develop; and it undermines social justice. If this Bill is passed, and I sincerely hope that it is not—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I call Richard Fuller.