Post-16 Skills Plan

Nick Boles Excerpts

Monday 11th July 2016 Written Statements

[The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles)]

As a country, one of the most important challenges we face is reforming the skills system. Such reform is crucial if we are to ensure our country’s future prosperity and improve the life chances of millions of people.

We have a critical need for highly skilled people, trained effectively, to grow the economy and raise productivity. Weaknesses in the UK’s skills base have contributed to its long-standing productivity gap with France, Germany and the US. While international comparisons highlight our strong performance at graduate and higher skills levels, we perform poorly at the intermediate, skilled technician level. Indeed the UK is forecast to fall from 22nd to 28th out of 33 OECD countries for these intermediate-level skills by 2020^[i]. Following the vote to leave the European Union, it will become more important than ever that we have a highly skilled workforce that boosts the productivity of the country and allows us to trade competitively across the world.

There is also a compelling moral case for change. Skilled employment leads to prosperity and security for individuals, while unskilled employment often means the opposite. We need to give all young people and adults the opportunity to gain the skills, knowledge and behaviours needed for the world of work.

We made significant improvements to the skills system in the last Parliament. We grew investment in apprenticeships, for example, and removed from performance tables thousands of poor-quality qualifications, that offered little or no advantage in the jobs market, as a result of the Wolf Report^[ii]. But there are still serious issues which must be tackled. Technical education remains the poor relation of academic education, and there are key challenges we must overcome, including:

standards and qualifications are not always set by employers; instead they are too often set by a confusing mixture of awarding organisations and intermediary bodies which have not provided an effective voice for business;

the system is too complex and often difficult to navigate for both young people and adults looking to retrain; and

we have too little dedicated technical education at advanced levels (levels 3, 4 and 5) to meet this country’s need for technician-level skills, and study programmes are not always designed to deliver what is needed to move to skilled employment.

On Friday 8 July I published, and laid before Parliament, a Post-16 Skills Plan. This is our ambitious framework to support young people and adults in England to secure a lifetime of sustained skilled employment and meet the needs of our growing and rapidly changing economy.

The Skills Plan builds directly on the recommendations of an independent panel on technical education. The panel was chaired by Lord Sainsbury of Turville and its members were: Baroness Wolf of Dulwich, Sir Roy Griffiths Professor of Public Sector Management at King’s College London; Bev Robinson, Principal and Chief Executive at Blackpool and The Fylde College; Simon Blagden, Non-executive Chairman at Fujitsu UK; and Steven West, Vice-Chancellor and President at University of the West of England. The panel consulted widely, its deliberations were non-political and its conclusions are pragmatic. Its recommendations draw from international best practice and will place our system on a par with the best in the world.

Together, the Skills Plan and Sainsbury report set out a holistic strategy to tackle the current flaws with the skills system by:

building on the apprenticeship ‘Trailblazer’ approach by putting employers at the heart of the system and empowering them to take the lead in setting the standards in technical education;

ensuring that, alongside the already well-established academic option, this country has a high-quality technical option which aligns apprenticeships and college-based learning;

building on the experience of other countries with successful skills systems by developing a new framework of 15 technical routes to skilled employment, with each route grouping together skilled occupations where training requirements are similar;

developing a strong, dynamic, financially sustainable and locally responsive training provider base through area reviews and other reforms; and

putting in place a wider set of systemic changes, including making more data available and reforming careers guidance to inform student choice, and ensuring we have the right funding and accountability arrangements in place.

The Skills Plan is our overarching framework, with a common set of principles and a guiding vision. I am confident that it can lead to lasting change. We will work closely with employers, colleges and other training providers to develop detailed plans, and publish more detail later in the year.

The Report of the Independent Panel on Technical Education will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

This statement has also been made in the House of Lords.

^[i]UKCES (2014) UK Skill Levels and International Competitiveness, 2013 available online at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-skills-levels-international-comparisons-and-competitiveness

^[ii]The Review of Vocational Education - The Wolf Report (2011), available online at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/review-of-vocational-education-the-wolf-report.

[HCWS80]

Oral Answers to Questions

Nick Boles Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Minister Nicholas Boles.

[The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles)]

I am surprised that you have shortened my name today, Mr Speaker.

The traineeship programme grew by more than 85% in 2014-15. Our first year evaluation showed positive progression rates with 50% of trainees moving on to apprenticeships and work, and a further 17% going on to further learning.

[Mr Speaker]

I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps the world should know that his full name is Mr Nicholas Edward Coleridge Boles.

[Jim McMahon]

Well played, Mr Speaker.

There is still a perception, I am afraid, that traineeships and apprenticeships are somehow second class compared with other career routes. As a former apprentice, I know just how rewarding they can be. This summer, I will be running a skilled trades summer school in my constituency to help young people to realise the advantages of electrical and mechanical engineering, the motor trades and joinery, for instance. Will the Minister meet me and members of Oldham College to talk about how we can raise the profile of those very important trades?

[Nick Boles]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his fantastic initiative, which is particularly powerful given his history as an apprentice—he can preach the reality of it. I have to confess to him that I have never been to Oldham, so I would love to come for the first time to join him.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Traineeships ought to be a route to good-quality apprenticeships, but we know that there remains a substantial gender pay gap for apprentices of more than £1 an hour. Will the Minister suggest how traineeships can be developed to encourage girls and young women into career routes that pay good salaries and have good prospects?

[Nick Boles]

The hon. Lady identifies an important challenge that has been long in existence, and we have a long way to go to correct it. The key thing is to try to persuade young women to go for the kinds of jobs that are open to them and would pay them much better rates: STEM-related careers and engineering-related jobs. Traineeships are often a good way for people to get a taste for a profession but, equally, we need to attack the problem much earlier—at primary school—to shape the attitudes of young girls and make them understand that, like the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), they have a career in technology open to them.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Peter Cheese, chief executive of CIPD, has said that if the Government are serious about improving the quality of apprenticeships and skills, as well as the quantity, they need completely to overhaul the apprenticeship levy. Is he right?

[Nick Boles]

He is right, to the extent that we want massively to improve the quality of apprenticeships, as well as the quantity, and they are not in conflict. But of course, if we are going to do both, we have to have more money to spend. That is why the apprenticeship levy is absolutely critical. It will enable us to take Government spending on apprenticeship training from £1.5 billion a year at the moment to £2.5 billion a year in England by the end of this Parliament, which is essential if we are to get the quality as well as the numbers up.

[Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

The Minister has tried to construct a reassurance on traineeships, but the facts that have been dragged from the Government tell a different story. Freedom of information figures published in FE Week show that just 9% of 19 to 24-year-olds and just one in five of all 16 to 24-year-olds went from traineeships to apprenticeships. The Labour party has consistently supported traineeships for getting many more young people into quality apprenticeships, so why have the Government wasted three years, failing properly to promote, explain or target them? Ten days ago, the Minister warned about Brexit uncertainties threatening apprenticeship growth and the levy, so will he now spell out new initiatives to tackle the necessary increase in traineeships, including support to further education colleges and providers who are desperate to press ahead with them; or else risk failing the young generation?

[Nick Boles]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on being one of the few people to resist the temptation to resign in the past 48 hours. He and the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), will go down in the history books as brave champions of modern opposition.

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is an avid reader of FE Week; it is an interesting publication. He will know that traineeships are not only about pre-apprenticeship programmes. The whole point of traineeships is to take people into apprenticeships, jobs or further training—whatever is best for them—and he would seek to narrow this programme, the great strength of which is its versatility.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

8. What steps he is taking to address skills shortages in the workforce.

[The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles)]

As has been often discussed, we are introducing an apprenticeship levy, which will have two main outcomes. First, we will dramatically increase spending on apprenticeships. It will also require large employers either to invest in apprenticeships or to see their money used by someone else.

[Mr Speaker]

I think that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to group this with Question 12.

[Nick Boles]

indicated assent.

[Mr Speaker]

Very good. Grouping agreed.

[Wendy Morton]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his answer. He will be very aware, as I am, that certain employers have said that they are not happy with the apprenticeship levy and have asked the Government to rethink, but does he agree that the levy is the best way to ensure that businesses invest in their employees’ skills and for the Government to put apprenticeship funding on a sustainable footing?

[Nick Boles]

Forgive me, Mr Speaker; we are all somewhat discombobulated at the moment. I should have mentioned that I am seeking to group this question with a later one.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. What we are trying to design with the apprenticeship levy is actually something of an innovation in government: it is a new tax, but the companies that pay the tax will be able to spend it on training that directly benefits them, so it creates a huge incentive for those employers who pay the levy to get maximum benefit from it by creating more apprenticeships, and I believe that it will have a powerful impact in her constituency.

[Byron Davies]

The importance of home-grown skills is clearly now even more important, given the result of the referendum last week. Considering the importance of EU funding to British universities, what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that universities and other major providers of skills in the UK are equipped and supported, following last Thursday’s vote?

[Nick Boles]

I agree with my hon. Friend. One of the results of the decision to leave the European Union is that we as a nation will have to do what we have done for hundreds of years, which is live by our wits and our talents, and we need to develop those talents by investing in education, in science, in research and in skills training. He is absolutely right about the crucial role that universities play—obviously, my hon. Friend the Minister for Universities and Science is leading on that—but we are working closely together to get more universities involved in providing degree apprenticeships, so that people can get degrees and rise to high positions through apprenticeships.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

One of the messages that has clearly come across to me from my experience campaigning in the referendum is that the free movement of people between this country and the rest of the European Union is no longer acceptable to the people I represent. What contingency plans has the Department got for what it will mean for the British economy to end the free movement of people?

[Nick Boles]

The hon. Gentleman will know that no changes are going to take place any time soon in any of the arrangements with the European Union. We have made a decision that we are going to leave the European Union, but there will be a lengthy process of negotiation to establish exactly what new arrangements will be put in place. However, he is right that one of the chief sources of concern in our communities is the free movement of people, and I am sure he is also right that in his constituency, as in my own, that will have been a motive for many people to vote. That does not alter the fact that whether we are inside the single market or not, whether we have free movement of people or not, investment in the skills of our own people so that British people can get the best British jobs is what we need.

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

The most recent employment skills survey conducted by the UK Commission for Employment and Skills found that 2 million staff had skills not currently being utilised in the workplace. Can the Minister detail the steps that he is taking to work with businesses to utilise those skills more productively?

[Nick Boles]

I feel as though I hardly use any of the skills that I have acquired during my long life—certainly not in this job. The hon. Lady is right that that applies to many people. It is one of the key reasons why we have resisted pressure to make apprenticeships something only for young people and only for new recruits, because for someone of 45, for example, who is returning to work after a career break or who has suddenly discovered in themselves an interest and a potential that they did not know about, it is right that there is Government support through apprenticeship training to enable them to develop those new skills and go on to a rewarding career.

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

19. Local businesses in Worcester tell me that they worry about skills shortages and they want to invest in young people. In order for them to do so, it is crucial that young people coming out of school have information about apprenticeships. Does the Minister agree that we need to keep on making sure that inspiring apprentices and their employers get into our schools to talk about the opportunities that apprenticeships can offer?

[Nick Boles]

My hon. Friend is right. I know that he will be playing a vital role in shepherding through Parliament the Bill that will require all schools to allow other providers of opportunity post-16, whether FE colleges or apprenticeship employers, to come into the school to talk to young people during school hours, so that they are aware of the full range of opportunities out there, including apprenticeships.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

One of the ways in which skills gaps in the economy have been filled is with EU nationals. That opportunity could now be lost to Scotland, especially in particular sectors and in rural areas. Can the Minister give an assurance to EU nationals currently filling skills gaps in the Scottish economy that their skills are valued and that they will be able to stay?

[Nick Boles]

I am very happy to do that and I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me the opportunity to do so, not just in relation to Scotland but elsewhere in our country. In my Lincolnshire constituency there are certain industries, such as food growing and processing, and the NHS, which would find it very hard to operate without the skills brought in by highly valued migrant workers, not just from the European Union, though importantly also from the European Union. The Prime Minister was very clear yesterday that those people’s position in our country is secure, their working rights are secure, and we remain a member of the European Union. Not only are they secure, but they are valued. We welcome them and we want them to stay here and help us make our society great.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

9. What steps he is taking to improve the quality of higher education.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

13. What steps the Government are taking to promote apprenticeships in the arboriculture, forestry, horticulture and landscape sector.

[The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles)]

We are working with employer groups to develop new apprenticeship standards such as arborist and forest operative. If I am ever seeking a new career, I can hardly think of a better one. We are also working on a pilot between the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and BIS to support a boost in the number of apprenticeships available in the national parks.

[Rebecca Pow]

I am delighted that the Government are addressing the skills shortage in this important area with their horticulture and landscape trailblazer apprenticeships. However, what talks has the Minister had with the Department for Education to make sure that courses offered to students provide what businesses actually need so that apprenticeships really work? I am going to welcome him to my constituency to talk about this so that perhaps he can assure me a little more.

[Nick Boles]

That is an excellent question. The advantage I have is that I am also a Minister in the Department for Education; I talk to myself worryingly often. My hon. Friend makes a very important point. When the skills plan is published, which will be soon, we will be guided very heavily by the review recently completed by Lord Sainsbury, who is looking at how we can ensure that the courses that people are offered in college are genuinely the courses that employers want because they provide the skills they need for modern jobs.

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure that the people of Taunton Deane are in a state of eager anticipation and high excitement at the prospect of a visit from the Minister.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Wales also offers opportunities for apprenticeships in forestry and horticulture, but employers and colleges in Wales are very concerned about how the apprenticeship levy will work. What recent discussions has the Minister had with Julie James, the Welsh Government Minister, and when does he expect the scheme details to be finalised?

[Nick Boles]

The hon. Lady asks a reasonable question. I had discussions with the Welsh Minister before the elections, which suspended matters briefly. There have been intensive contacts at official level not only between Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Welsh, Scottish and other Governments on how the levy arrangements will work from a tax-raising point of view, but with my officials on how the levy will operate. We will publish more details before the summer recess.

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

14. What steps he is taking to support people made redundant from Courtaulds UK Ltd in Belper.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)]

T2. The Greater Manchester region is a huge supporter of apprenticeships, with 30,000 starts last year alone. I recently met the young apprentices from Thales in my constituency, who are doing excellent and innovative work on the development of underwater sonar systems. Will the Minister outline what additional support his Department is giving to the city region to increase apprenticeship uptake?

[The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles)]

I congratulate Greater Manchester on achieving a 75% increase in apprenticeships since 2010. My hon. Friend will be aware that we have devolved the apprenticeship grant for employers—an incentive payment to encourage employers who have not previously employed apprentices to do so—to Manchester so that the authority there can target it at the particular kinds of employer that it wants apprenticeship growth to come through.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

T4. As we head towards Brexit, many EU-derived regulations will no doubt come under the microscope. Some of the most important are the working time regulations, which protect vital safe working limits in the workplace. Will the Government confirm that they intend to retain all elements of the working time regulations?

--- Later in debate ---

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

T9. Fire and rescue services attend up to three fires a day that are a result of faulty tumble driers. Which?, the Local Government Association, Electrical Safety First and other consumer interest groups have all raised concerns about how Whirlpool has handled that problem. Is the Minister comfortable that Whirlpool has merely issued a safety statement and not a total recall?

[Nick Boles]

I have had a meeting with the hon. Lady, for which I am grateful, and she has really led for consumers on this issue. As I think I explained, an investigation has suggested that the approach taken by Whirlpool was reasonable, and that the nature of the risk was not such that a total recall was required. However, she is right to say that the company needs to get a move on, and it is not right or reasonable to leave people waiting for months and months to have a faulty product, for which Whirlpool should be accountable, replaced.

[Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)]

T6. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is the duty of Ministers who are loyal to the Crown to promote the British economy and not to talk it down? Will she agree to a joint meeting with me and Ministry of Defence procurement to discuss how we can more effectively promote and develop defence industries such as those in my constituency?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I understand that the UK Government have yet to confirm whether the allocation of the apprenticeship levy in Scotland will be based on the number of employers in Scotland, or the percentage of the levy paid in Scotland. Will the Minister provide that clarification today? If not, when will he?

[Nick Boles]

As I indicated to the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), I have been in discussions with the Minister representing the Welsh Government in this conversation. These discussions are ongoing. This is a matter for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, not something for which I am directly responsible, but I know that there have been intensive negotiations and discussions. I do not want to pass the buck, but I fear that I will have to encourage the hon. Lady to direct her question to a Minister at Treasury questions, because the Treasury and HMRC are handling these discussions.

[Mr Speaker]

Finally, I do not want the voice of East Antrim to remain unheard. I call Mr Sammy Wilson.

Further Education Colleges: Greater Manchester

Nick Boles Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2016 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles)]

I will be very happy to, Ms Ryan. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and to respond to what has been a really interesting and constructive debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) on securing the debate and on approaching it in such a thoughtful and constructive fashion.

The area review is taking place in the northern powerhouse, in the Greater Manchester authority. I am sure that we would all be happy to admit that the co-operation between the Manchester authorities has been long standing and has many mothers and fathers. Nevertheless, I hope that hon. Members will recognise that on the northern powerhouse’s birth certificate the name George Osborne is there as “father”. The delivery of the vision of the northern powerhouse is what the area review and devolution of skills to the Greater Manchester combined authority are critically designed to achieve.

[Mike Kane]

The shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden), is the historian, but I just want to point out to the Minister that it was Daniel Adamson who built the ship canal in 1860 and who coined the phrase “northern powerhouse” when he envisaged a single market from the banks of the Mersey estuary to the banks of the Humber estuary—but carry on.

[Nick Boles]

I am always happy to be corrected on a point of history; I am sure that there is room for Mr Adamson’s name on the birth certificate as well.

It is a great pleasure to respond, because normally I find in these debates that, when the fundamental purpose of the Government’s policy has been attacked, I have to spend so much time explaining and defending it that I cannot actually address any of the more detailed questions of implementation that have been raised. Today, given that there seems to be a general acceptance that, at least in principle, the area review has the potential to create a stronger and more sustainable system of further education in Greater Manchester, I hope that I can actually spend the time available addressing some of the particular points.

I will start with the points made by the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East. As his hon. Friends have said, he gave a brilliant exposition of the skills challenges facing the Greater Manchester area. He specifically asked about concerns raised by the UCU. I want to reassure him that last week I met the union’s general secretary to discuss some of those concerns and how we can ensure that, where possible, we consult trade unions and their members on some of the ideas emerging from the area reviews. I have asked the union’s general secretary to come back with some specific ideas about how that might work. I hope that will satisfy some of the hon. Gentleman’s concerns.

The hon. Gentleman asked an important question about break clauses on bank loans—I have been asked it before in the House but have never had long enough to go into detail. I know that this has caused people some concern. We do not yet have a specific example of a college that is facing a very substantial payment that it was surprised by and that it does not want to enter into. The first point to make is that in the restructuring of bank facilities it may be, in a merger or some other kind of transaction, that the bank will have the technical right to impose certain charges. It is a matter of negotiation. They may have the right to, but if they see that the overall new construction or group is actually going to be a better borrowing risk for them, and make it more likely that they will get their money back or be able to lend more money, which is what banks are in the business of after all, then they can novate loans—to use the jargon—without break costs when the new loan is lower risk.

The critical point, which will apply not only to break clauses but to everything in a sense, is that although we will be strongly encouraging colleges to undertake the changes and mergers when that is what is recommended, ultimately that will be a decision for them. They are independent institutions and they will be able to take into account the full range of costs and benefits. There may be costs, to some extent, or bank charges, but they will need to go ahead only if the benefits of other cost savings or advantages are greater than those charges. As I said, I hope that in reality those charges will not prove to be as much of a problem as the hon. Gentleman perhaps feared.

The hon. Gentleman raised a very interesting question that we will not be able to go into in great detail now. However, I hear him and have some sympathy with his point that adult learner loans are not available for short courses. Although we have career development loans, their terms of repayment are less attractive to students than those of adult learner loans.

[Mr Marsden]

rose—

[Nick Boles]

May I just finish my sentence and then I will be happy to give way? I understand the point. I think we need to learn from some past mistakes. If we start having the taxpayer subsidising loan provision for very short courses, which is not something I want to rule out in principle, one has to ask how the Government and the taxpayer will be reassured that those short courses are genuinely valuable—as well as being valuable to the individual and their employer, they have to have some transferrable skills value. That is so that taxpayers’ money is not subsidising activity that is beneficial only to that narrow employer in that narrow job. That is something we are wrestling with, and I would be happy to hear ideas from the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East and other hon. Members on the subject.

[Mr Marsden]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and entirely take his point about not wanting to subsidise—if I can put it that way—short-term courses that are not going anywhere. That might lead us into a broader discussion about credit accumulation processes and the rest, but I do not want to touch on that now. The point I want to make is that at the moment, as the Minister will be well aware, the take-up of those adult learner loans was somewhat less than 50% at the last count. It might be—dare I say it?—in his interests, or in the future interests of any person occupying his post, when negotiating with the Treasury, to make the point that there is this demand in the way that my hon. Friends have described, and that it could be valuable if a reasonable construction of it could be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Boles]

I hear that, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Treasury is very much aware of the issue. We have obviously expanded the application of advanced learner loans to a broader age group and a broader range of levels, but he is right that we nevertheless have more budget than is currently being utilised and there may be a way safely to extend its use. There are also issues with the Student Loans Company, which has a pretty big administrative burden at the moment, as he will be well aware. It manages those loans, so there are also technical implications. I would be very happy to discuss detailed ideas about that with hon. Members in future.

I want to move on to the question, which a number of hon. Members raised, about the involvement of schools in the area reviews, the request by Greater Manchester Combined Authority for greater power over schools and—the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) raised this—whether what is going on in those schools is going to be considered as part of the area review. There are a couple of things to say. First, the regional schools commissioners are required to contribute to the underlying analysis for the area review and to be closely involved. The Greater Manchester Combined Authority is absolutely encouraged to have a very close relationship with the regional schools commissioner, as are individual MPs. I know that Government Members have started meeting the regional schools commissioners, as we have encouraged, and have found the meetings to be incredibly useful. Regional schools commissioners are available to meet hon. Members to discuss any concerns they might have.

On integration, in the sense of the programme of study that leads people and makes it more likely that they are going to succeed when they move into college and post-16 education, I hope that hon. Members will be willing to wait until the Sainsbury review and the skills plan are published. I can promise them that it will be very soon after the referendum, so it will give us something rather more interesting to talk about. I hope that will give a more complete picture of how we are looking at the curriculum, how people, including people with special educational needs, as the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) said, can be best placed to succeed in that curriculum, and how we can ensure better access and a better step up into further education programmes than is currently the case. That will all be addressed in the skills plan and the Sainsbury review. We are keen to discuss that with hon. Members in time.

The hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) intervened to raise a number of concerns—the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East also referred to them—about whether the area review specifically in Greater Manchester is ambitious enough and whether it is taking too long. Theresa Grant, who is chairing the review, is one of the most impressive public officials I have come across in my time in government. I am strongly inclined to agree with anything she says about any subject. As the representative of the combined authority, she does not believe that the colleges are being sufficiently ambitious. Concerns were raised that those that are hanging on to their independence, for understandable reasons—perhaps they are already good or outstanding—may not be looking far enough out and should think about the future landscape and opportunities, not just about rifts and threats.

I strongly encourage the colleges that are part of the review to take on board Theresa Grant’s comments and to work with her in further meetings—I believe that there will be another one next week—to try to see whether there is a way to grasp the opportunities more boldly than the initial proposals were grasped. That is my comment about her comments as chair, because ultimately it is for the review and the individual colleges within it to decide what recommendations they will adopt and to implement them.

I understand that there have been questions, not least by the shadow Minister, about whether we could give the Greater Manchester combined authority more power to enforce some of the recommendations. If we render colleges no longer independent, their whole balance sheet will suddenly come into the public sector balance sheet. I am not sure that Greater Manchester combined authority wants all the liabilities of the Greater Manchester college sector on its balance sheet as it starts life as a combined authority, and nor do we in Government. We must be a little prudent.

Having said that, those colleges will understand that the Greater Manchester combined authority will shortly control the entire adult skills budget. It will form outcome agreements with different colleges and will be able to move money around, as they can do already with capital, as has been noted. If we are in the business of pleasing our customers, I hope that all the colleges in the area review understand that the Greater Manchester combined authority will be a tremendously important one and take on board its recommendations on how the review should unfold.

I think I have addressed everything I had noted. If no one wants to intervene before I sit down, I am happy to hand over to the hon. Gentleman who introduced the debate.

Age Discrimination: National Living Wage

Nick Boles Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2016 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles)]

Mr Davies, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Whatever utterances you choose to make, I will still enjoy serving under your chairmanship.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) on securing the debate and for setting out her argument as clearly as she did. Hers was one of the more reasonable and well-founded arguments made, but listening even to her speech one would have thought it was not the Labour Government who introduced the idea of age-related minimum wages. Because you are, Mr Davies, like me, of a somewhat older generation than some of the contributors to the debate, you will remember that age-related rates were an integral part of the original National Minimum Wage Act 1998—Labour are right to be proud of that achievement. It was integral that the design should allow rates to vary up to the age of 26. That was done by the Labour Government explicitly to protect young workers in the labour market.

In advancing the argument that the national living wage is somehow an egregious act of discrimination, the Labour party and the hon. Member for Halifax have to accept that they are advancing the argument that the last Labour Government to win an election were a discriminatory Government. Although I am sure that the hon. Members from the Scottish National party would be only too happy to endorse that suggestion, I suspect that the hon. Member for Halifax and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith), would not want to go quite that far.

Let me turn to the impact on employment opportunities. Hon. Members seem to forget that there is a real reason why raising legal minimum wages for younger workers too quickly is a risk. When the last Labour Government—the same Labour Government who brought in the minimum wage with age-related bands—finally limped out of office in 2010, unemployment was high in general, but it was particularly high for young people. In the first quarter of 2010, more than 930,000 young people throughout the United Kingdom aged between 16 and 24 were unemployed. The unemployment rate was much higher as a percentage than the rate for people over 24.

I am glad to say that under the coalition Government and the current Government, we have managed to bring unemployment down not only for people over 24, but particularly for people under 24. Now, 307,000 fewer people between the ages of 16 and 24 are unemployed than when the last Labour Government completed their term in office. The risk of unemployment for young people is a sensitive issue because we all know that a protracted period of unemployment can have long-term negative effects on people’s chances as they go through life.

[Cat Smith]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Boles]

No. I heard a lot from the hon. Lady.

It is especially important that young people are given early opportunities, which explains the original construction of the national minimum wage. Opposition Members surely recognise that the Low Pay Commission is an independent body charged with advising the Government on what is a responsible increase for the national minimum wage. The commission is charged with looking in particular at what is called—forgive me for the rather unpleasant jargon—the varying bites of minimum wage rises. That refers to the percentage of the median wage for someone of that age that the national minimum wage would represent at that particular level. I am sure everybody can understand, because it is a matter of common sense, that the closer the national minimum wage rate for somebody of that age gets to the median wage, the greater the risk that raising the national minimum wage rate will reduce employment opportunities.

[Mhairi Black]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Boles]

I am not going to give way. I listened to the hon. Lady intently and I am trying to cover all the points raised in a longish debate.

It is critical to understand that although the national minimum wage bite—the percentage of the median wage—for 25 to 30-year-olds in 2015, before the national living wage came in, was only 59%, the bite for 21 to 24-year-olds was 78.7%. That is nearly 80% of the median wage, and that is before the substantial increase in the national minimum wage that was recently introduced for people under 25. There was a significant risk that, had the Government introduced the national living wage for everyone, including those under 25, that would have had a substantial and negative effect on those under-25s’ employment opportunities.

The hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) referred to the apprentice minimum wage. It is important to note that in 2015 the apprentice minimum wage rose by 21%. We had inherited from the previous Government, which she supported, an extremely low apprentice national minimum wage. Employers make a substantial investment in apprentices, so we understand that it is important not to choke off their willingness to make that investment by setting legal minimum wages that are too high.

Nevertheless, in Government—at the time, the coalition—we felt that the level of the national minimum wage for apprentices was egregiously and unfairly low. On one of the few occasions when any Government of either, or any, stripe have rejected a recommendation of the Low Pay Commission, we rejected its recommendation for a small increase in the apprentice national minimum wage, and we instead increased it in one year by 21%, the equivalent of a £1,185 pay rise for a full-time apprentice working 40 hours a week. So we acted on the apprentice minimum wage.

We have taken the advice of the Low Pay Commission and also acted on the national minimum wage rates that apply to people under the age of 25. This year, we accepted all of the Low Pay Commission’s recommendations for national minimum wage rates to come into force from this October. The main national minimum wage rate for 21 to 24-year-olds will increase by 25p, or 3.7%—substantially more than inflation or, indeed, average wage growth—to £6.95 per hour. That is the largest single increase in the main rate of the national minimum wage since 2008, in cash terms, with the expectation of the highest level ever in real terms.

Finally, hon. Members from the various Opposition parties may debate how discriminatory legislation brought in by the Labour Government was, but this Government will continue to invest in apprenticeships; to create millions of jobs, in particular for young people; and to increase wages of all working people, under and over the age of 25, through the national minimum wage and the new national living wage.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nick Boles Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Colleen Fletcher (Coventry North East) (Lab)]

4. What his Department’s strategy is for the funding of adult skills provision in FE colleges for the remainder of this Parliament; and if he will make a statement.

[The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles)]

We are protecting the adult education budget in cash terms, extending subsidised loans to advanced learners and introducing an apprenticeship levy, so funding will be 40% higher in cash terms by 2020.

[Colleen Fletcher]

We are told that the adult skills budgets will be devolved to regions that have secured a devolution deal. Will the Minister assure me that those budgets will be ring-fenced and not subjected to cuts?

[Nick Boles]

We will certainly be ensuring that the budgets are spent on skills training, but the whole point of devolving them is to give the local combined authorities the power to decide which are the skills priorities in their area, not to have them asking me for permission to spend on a skills need that they have identified.

[Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

Area reviews are an important way of understanding local adult education needs. Will the Minister be encouraging such reviews to look at the needs of women returning to work after caring responsibilities, so that they can use the further education sector to really develop their skills and add to the productivity of our country?

[Nick Boles]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the great opportunities in the apprenticeships programme is that apprenticeships are all age. For women who have perhaps taken a career break, or just want to change their profession, an apprenticeship is an opportunity to gain new skills while also earning an income so that they can forge a great career.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

When will the Government be publishing guidelines on how skills budgets might be devolved in those areas where that devolution is being looked at?

[Nick Boles]

That will depend on when exactly the devolution deal is done. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, in our own area of Greater Lincolnshire that deal is reasonably well advanced; in other parts of the country, the deals are less well advanced. Fundamentally, it is pretty simple: we want authorities to be commissioning from their local colleges the adult skills provision that they believe their area can benefit from.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Although the budget is enhanced, it is only a finite amount. Given that, it is important that it is targeted at where it will have the most effect. Does the Minister agree that those funds are best targeted at young adults, the low-skilled and those actively seeking work?

[Nick Boles]

I agree with my hon. Friend that those will often be the best targets. What is even more important is that his local combined authority and those of other hon. Members are best placed to identify the particular groups or industries with particular needs, and then respond accordingly.

[Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)]

Further education colleges in Scotland are the largest providers of apprenticeship education. Will they therefore be exempt from the apprenticeship levy?

[Nick Boles]

The apprenticeship levy will apply to all employers throughout the United Kingdom with a payroll bill of more than £3 million. Of course, there is absolutely nothing to prevent any employer in Scotland that is paying the levy from putting pressure on whoever is in government in Scotland after this Thursday to make sure that they increase their investment in apprenticeships, as we are doing in England.

[Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

Tucked away in the autumn statement was the Government’s admission that they will be cutting—their term is “efficiencies”—£360 million of adult skills non-apprenticeship funding between now and 2020. Does the Minister not see that there is a paradox in the Government going hell for leather on English and maths for young people’s apprenticeships while failing to ring-fence funding for basic skills, when England has 9 million people of working age with low literacy and numeracy, and we are ranked bottom in literacy and next-to-bottom in numeracy among 23 developed nations? Last year, the Government cut the adult skills budget across England by 18%. Now they have scrapped plans for advanced post-24 skills. Why is the Government’s key White Paper addressing technical skills shortages being delayed? Is all this a strategy or a wing and a prayer?

[Nick Boles]

There was a lot of detail in the hon. Gentleman’s question, but not a lot of clarity, so here is the clarity: we are increasing total funding available for further education by 40% in cash terms during this Parliament. He talks about last year because he does not like this year, and that is because this year’s spend tells the story of a Government investing in skills for the future.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

5. What steps he is taking to encourage businesses to take on apprentices.

[The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles)]

We have removed employers’ national insurance from apprentices under the age of 25, and are introducing an apprenticeship levy for larger employers, which will increase the budget for apprenticeship training in England to £2.5 billion in 2019-20.

[Andrew Stephenson]

To mark national apprenticeship week, I visited Silentnight in Barnoldswick, whose award-winning apprenticeship scheme has already created over 40 full-time jobs. Does the Minister agree that companies such as Silentnight, which is seeing real year-on-year sales growth at the moment because of its apprentices, are great examples to employers across Pendle and the rest of the UK?

[Nick Boles]

I particularly welcome the example of Silentnight in my hon. Friend’s constituency, because it is really important to understand that apprentices add value to their employers—they are not just receiving training; they are also adding value. We consistently hear employers saying that apprentices bring energy, ideas, enthusiasm and new contacts to their businesses.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

It is becoming increasingly clear that the systems and processes needed to implement the apprenticeship levy are far from ready. Many see it as a tax on jobs. The Scottish National party has tabled an amendment to the Finance Bill to seek a full review, and the CBI has called for a radical rethink. I am grateful to the Minister for meeting me and representatives of the oil and gas sector recently. He well knows the continuing issues with double charging. Will he heed these calls and delay implementation of the apprenticeship levy until the systems and processes are ready and business has been fully engaged?

[Nick Boles]

No, we will not be delaying, because for decades no Government adequately gripped the problem we have in this country, which is that businesses invest too little in skills development. That is what holds our productivity back. As it happens, since the CBI’s survey, and since other surveys of the same kind, we have published a detailed technical guide for employers on how the apprenticeship levy will work. I encourage the hon. Lady and her constituents to look at it. If they have any further questions I am happy to answer them, but the levy will be coming in in April 2017, and we will be fixing Britain’s skills problems.

[Peter Heaton-Jones (North Devon) (Con)]

On Friday I attended an event to mark the first anniversary of the extremely successful Care Academy, which is a unique collaboration in my constituency between Petroc College and the Northern Devon Healthcare NHS Trust. In effect, it provides apprenticeships for young people wanting to get into the health profession. Will the Minister join me in congratulating the excellent students who have been through the Care Academy in the first year, and does he agree that it is an extremely worthwhile programme for the future?

[Nick Boles]

It is well known that we have huge skills needs in the care sector and the NHS, and that kind of academy is exactly what we need to see more of, so I am delighted that my hon. Friend’s constituency, Petroc College and others are setting an example.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

The Minister will know that the number of BIS staff working on the apprenticeship programme is due to fall massively by 2020. What assessment has he made of his Department’s capacity to deliver the apprenticeship target?

[Nick Boles]

The number of BIS staff who will be working on the apprenticeship programme will fall, but only because we are setting up a new, independent institute for apprenticeships that will take over many of the jobs that are currently undertaken by BIS staff. That institute will be in the control of the employers who are paying the levy. I think that is the right way to do it and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome it.

[Ben Howlett (Bath) (Con)]

Businesses such as Rotork, BMT and Designability in Bath have taken on hundreds of new apprentices since the scheme first started, enabling young people to gain the best qualifications for a really great career. Does my hon. Friend agree, however, that although the Government are doing a great deal to encourage older people into apprenticeship schemes, a cultural shift is required to encourage even more into the scheme in the future?

[Nick Boles]

I think my hon. Friend is right about that, because there is a common misconception that apprenticeships are somehow only really appropriate for school leavers, whereas the reality is that they offer opportunities to people at all stages in their lives, and indeed at all stages in their careers. It is not just for new recruits to an employer; it can be for somebody who has been working for an employer for several years but has discovered that they have the potential to develop.

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

6. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the support and guidance for businesses on employing people on the autistic spectrum.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

T7. I am proud that, of the south-east’s 348,000 apprenticeships, Rochester and Strood has provided 7,410, the fourth largest number. I am also grateful to companies such as BAE Systems that makes an annual commitment to 12 higher level apprenticeships in my area. How can the Secretary of State provide further support to my constituency’s small and medium-sized businesses to offer more local people the opportunity of a quality apprenticeship?

[The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles)]

The performance of businesses in my hon. Friend’s constituency is truly remarkable and leads the way in the south-east. I hope that she is aware that we offer smaller employers who have never had apprentices before a grant to help them with their first five apprenticeships. I hope that she will be able to communicate that to them and ensure that they take up that grant.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

T3. Given the similarity of recent events at British Home Stores with what happened to Hull-based Comet four years ago, when British taxpayers were left with tens of millions of pounds to pay out in redundancy payments, will the Secretary of State ensure that the report that he commissioned on Comet and the Comet scandal is published?

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

The HCF CATCH training facility in my constituency was established 10 years ago as a partnership between the local authority and the private sector, since when 800 apprentices have passed through its doors. May I invite my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or the Skills Minister to visit it? Does he agree that such a partnership is the way forward?

[Nick Boles]

I feel sure that my hon. Friend is slightly disappointed to have just a Lincolnshire neighbour coming to visit him, but if he can put up with me, I would be delighted to do so.

[Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)]

T8. In the Secretary of State’s discussions with Tata, will he have time to raise Tata’s involvement in the outsourcing of up to 800 jobs from British Airways, including its centre in south Manchester, which supplies jobs to my constituents and has already announced 80 redundancies? As The Daily Telegraph revealed last week, this is another example where Tata’s actions threaten our national security along with our jobs, so will the Government step in to protect both?

--- Later in debate ---

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

T9. Will the Secretary of State reconsider the decision to scrap bursaries for nurses? First, that will deter mature students and people from black and minority ethnic communities and disadvantaged communities, and secondly, while nurses are training, they spend 50% of their time doing practical work, looking after people. It is unfair that they should pay to provide services to others.

[Nick Boles]

What I share with the hon. Lady is a determination to ensure that the groups she mentioned and other groups that have been discussed today have the maximum opportunity, particularly in the NHS. That is one reason why we are making great steps towards developing a new nursing apprenticeship, which will offer people a way into the profession, gaining that qualification while they are working and earning.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

Alas, there is no law against selling a company to a bunch of clowns, which is a great pity for the employees and pension holders of British Home Stores. However, there is an expectation that the public should be able to look to the advisers in such a sale—the lawyers and accountants—to live up to their responsibilities and to do their duty. Will my right hon. Friend look carefully at the templates and responsibilities for advisers in transactions so that we do not see another great British company sold to a bunch of muppets?

Trade Union Bill (Discussions)

Nick Boles Excerpts

Thursday 28th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Prime Minister if he will instruct his adviser on ministerial interests to launch an inquiry as to whether discussions between Ministers and officials and representatives of trade unions or the Labour party concerning amendments to the Trade Union Bill constitute a breach of the ministerial code of conduct. I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question.

[The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles)]

The Cabinet Office has advised me that there is no breach of the ministerial code and nothing for the Prime Minister’s adviser on ministerial interests to investigate.

The Trade Union Bill is now in ping-pong and, as is customary at such times, Ministers have held regular discussions with shadow Ministers to discuss possible compromises that would secure passage of the Bill and delivery of the commitments made in the Conservative party’s manifesto. On the basis of the amendments passed by this House yesterday evening, I can reassure my hon. Friend that we are well on the way to securing all our manifesto commitments—ballot thresholds for strikes, reforms to the role of the certification officer, a tightening-up of rules around facility time, action to stop intimidation of non-striking workers, and the introduction of a transparent opt-in process for union members’ contributions to political funds.

The question of compulsory opt-in to trade unions’ political funds was one of the most contentious, especially in the House of Lords. Noble Lords referred the clauses in the Bill to a special Select Committee under the chairmanship of Lord Burns. Following the Select Committee’s report, the House of Lords voted by a large majority to accept an amendment to restrict the opt-in to new members and to exclude existing trade union members.

My hon. Friend will not be surprised to learn that I hold regular meetings with trade union leaders and the general secretary of the TUC, not just in relation to the Bill, but in relation to other responsibilities of mine, including our support for the excellent work of Unionlearn.

Trade union support for the campaign to remain in the European Union is not new and should not come as a surprise to anyone. The TUC declared its support for the campaign in February. The GMB union did the same on 22 February, Unite on 14 March and Unison on 13 April.

[Mr Jenkin]

We all remember the Prime Minister foretelling that the next great scandal would be a lobbying scandal, and here it is. Trade union leaders have been complaining that they are unable to campaign effectively for a remain vote in the EU referendum while the Government’s Trade Union Bill has been threatening trade unions and their funding. The Bill would have implemented a Conservative manifesto commitment to

“legislate to ensure trade unions use a transparent opt-in process for union subscriptions”.

As a result of the amendment being accepted, a 19-year-old who has just started a job and is a member of a trade union will now never be asked by a trade union whether he wants his political fund subscriptions to be taken out of his pay packet.

The Prime Minister told the House of Commons on 15 July last year:

“There is a very simple principle here: giving money to a party should be an act of free will. Money should not be taken out of people’s pay packets without them being told about it properly”—[Official Report, 15 July 2015; Vol. 598, c. 885.]

and he likened that to mis-selling. On 16 March, the Minister in the other place described the Labour amendment, which the Government have now accepted, as a “wrecking amendment”. Yesterday, the Minister made a wholly unexpected concession when he announced his decision to abandon opposition to the change in the Bill.

It is now being reported on Channel 4 News and in today’s papers that those unexpected concessions are linked to a £1.7 million donation that trade unions might make from their political funds, which are now much larger than they would have been, to the Labour remain campaign, Labour In For Britain. Until recently, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) was trying to raise £75,000 for a few leaflets, balloons and badges; now the campaign is getting £1.7 million. It has been confirmed to me by more than two independent sources that No. 10 instructed those concessions to be made after discussions with trade union representatives. That being true would amount to the sale of Government policy for cash and political favours.

Lest there be any doubt about the impropriety of this deal, Her Majesty’s Opposition should ask themselves this question: what would they be saying if this Government had altered a Bill in order to give extra money to the Conservative party or to the Conservatives’ remain campaign, Conservatives In? My hon. Friend the Minister should ask himself this question: what would have been the reaction if a Labour Government had changed a Bill in order to favour the Labour party’s ability to support the Government on some controversial policy and in order to give the Labour party money? This stinks—it reeks the same as cash for questions. This shows that this Government really are at the rotten heart of the European Union.

The seven principles of public life require public office holders to

“avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence…their work.”

The ministerial code states:

“Ministers must ensure that no conflict arises”,

or appears to arise,

“between their public duties and their private interests”.

In this matter, the Labour party constitutes one of their private interests.

Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister instruct his adviser on ministerial interests, Sir Alex Allan, to launch an investigation? If my hon. Friend the Minister and the Cabinet Office are right, he has nothing to fear from such an investigation.

[Nick Boles]

May I start by saying that I have the greatest respect for the passion and commitment, which have lasted for not just years but decades, that my hon. Friend has brought to the cause he advocates with such vigour—that we leave the European Union? I have nothing but total respect for that passion and commitment.

I just want gently to correct my hon. Friend on a few points of fact, because he focused so much on the important question he raised that a number of the things he suggested about the current mechanism for union members’ subscriptions to the political fund were not absolutely correct.

The first point to make is that it is not the case that somebody who has recently joined a trade union, and to whom the new requirement for an opt-in will therefore not apply, will never be asked whether they want to pay into the political levy—very far from it. There is a long-standing legal requirement that they are offered an opt-out from that political levy and that that is communicated clearly to them. That opt-out is not just a one-time thing; it is not something they are offered only when they join—it is something they can exercise at any time, and they need to be reminded of it regularly.

The other thing to say is that, while estimates from different unions vary, the overall estimate is that roughly 13% to 14% of all trade union members joined in the last year. I am not going to suggest that all trade union members will have needed to opt in to the political fund over this Parliament, but a substantial proportion will have.

I am afraid my hon. Friend is also not correct to say that we are talking about a Labour amendment. The amendment was moved by Lord Burns—somebody for whom I know my hon. Friend has the greatest respect, as a fearsomely independent former permanent secretary. The amendment flowed out of a Committee in which there was some very fearsome representation of all parties. It was clearly inspired by Lord Burns’s argument that it is not reasonable to ask people who have signed up to an arrangement in good faith then to have to sign up again through a different process simply because we have changed the law later on. I did not agree with that argument, and nor did we in this House, but what happened often happens when the House of Lords feels very, very strongly on an issue, when there is a very, very large majority against the Government’s position, and when an Independent Member of the House of Lords has moved an amendment that has secured support not just from the official Opposition and from the Liberal Democrats but from a huge number of Cross Benchers—and not just from Cross Benchers but some very significant members of our own party.

I urge my hon. Friend to look at the people who spoke in the debate and voted, or very assertively chose not to vote, in support of the Government’s position. They included not just Lord Cormack and Lord Balfe but Lord Forsyth, who supports the same campaign on the European Union that my hon. Friend has supported and who, both privately and publicly, said that he thought it was a profound error for us to pursue a compulsory opt-in for all existing members. So it is not right to say that it was just a Labour position.

My hon. Friend suggested that it was inappropriate for the Government to do anything in terms of making changes to legislation to further private interests, and of course he is right. However, it is not right, and not even in the passion of the moment is it fair, to categorise the official policy of Her Majesty’s Government in that way. We support the proposition that the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union. He disagrees, honourably and valiantly, but it is not a private interest—it is Government policy.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

It is very good to have this further opportunity to re-emphasise our implacable opposition to the execrable Trade Union Bill, which is entirely unnecessary, bad for workers, and bad for businesses. As the Minister said, the Lords set up a cross-party Committee chaired by Lord Burns to look at the unworkable proposals on trade union political funds and party political funding. That Committee came up with a series of Salisbury-convention-compliant recommendations that were voted for by an overwhelming majority of peers from all parties and from none.

Will the Minister confirm that he recently met Lord Burns, who made clear the strength of feeling in the other place on this matter? Will he also confirm that he has received overwhelming representations from all quarters, including the trade unions? By the way, it is hardly surprising, given that this is the Trade Union Bill, that he should receive representations from the unions. Is it not the case that all these various representations made it clear that the proposals on political funding were unworkable and breached the long-established convention that major changes to the funding of a political party should happen only by agreement?

It would appear, at least partially that the Minister listened—well done—but he should have listened earlier, and he needs to keep listening. Will he therefore have a few more meetings with trade unions, which have made entirely reasonable proposals on e-balloting and facility time that still remain in the Bill? There is still time for him to think again.

[Nick Boles]

I can confirm that, as the hon. Gentleman said, earlier this week I held a meeting, at my request, with Lord Burns in which I discussed with him an amendment to the Bill that we had put down and were intending to move. That amendment would still have applied the compulsory opt-in to existing members of trade unions but would have built a longer period of transition for trade unions to implement it and would also have changed the arrangements on the requirement for renewal of their opt-in to align it with the political fund ballots that need to take place every 10 years.

I had hoped that Lord Burns would feel, if not enthusiastic about that compromise, at least able to indicate that he would not actively oppose it when the Bill went back to the upper House in the next stage of ping-pong. Lord Burns, who is a man for whom I have huge admiration and a great deal of liking, was very clear to me that that was not an acceptable compromise and that not only would he not support it, but he would actively propose the reinstatement of his amendment, which excluded existing members.

Lord Burns made it very clear that his judgment was not so much a political one—it was certainly not particularly inspired by questions about the balance of party funding. It was simply based on his experience in the financial services industry, where he said it was very unfair to ask people to sign up to new things when they have already expressed an opinion on that very same question by a means that was previously legal. He said that that applied in this case; he thought that it was wrong and he could not support it. We then reflected on Lord Burns’s position and tabled the amendments that we passed last night.

As for the comments made by the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) about the rest of the Bill, I want to be very clear with him and other Labour Members: this Bill is going to dramatically improve the state of employment relations and the state of industrial action. At the moment, a trade union, including various education trade unions, can hold a strike three years after a ballot has been passed with a turnout of less than 20% of their members and close more than 1,000 colleges. That is currently legal. When the Bill—which will pass through this House with the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin); I anticipate that the noble Lords will pass it next week—receives Royal Assent, it will no longer be possible to inflict on hard-working parents the closure of a school in the middle of the week on the basis of a tiny turnout secured several years ago. That is why I am proud of this Bill and why my hon. Friend can be proud of it: we have secured our manifesto commitments for all working people.

[Mr Speaker]

The Minister, regrettably, has been diverted from the path of procedural virtue as a result of the cheeky inquiries of the Opposition Front Bencher. We cannot now have a Third Reading of the Trade Union Bill. We must focus narrowly instead on the matter of the urgent question, which I know will be done faithfully by Dr Liam Fox.

[Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)]

Given this change to the Trade Union Bill, and following on from our abandonment of our manifesto commitments on immigration by not renegotiating free movement, will my hon. Friend tell us which of our election commitments we will not now abandon in trying to seek a remain vote?

[Nick Boles]

Your cautionary tone is ringing in my ears, Mr Speaker, so I will answer my right hon. Friend’s question by narrowly focusing on the measures in the Bill that demonstrate, as I said at the start of my answer, that we have genuinely secured everything that was in our manifesto. This point came up in my discussion with Lord Burns, who really knows a thing or two about legislative drafting. Having read and re-read the precise words in our manifesto about the commitment to introduce a transparent opt-in for the political fund, he said that he was absolutely confident and very clear that the amendment that he tabled, which was passed in the other place and which we have now accepted, fulfilled that manifesto commitment in full; and not only that, but that the further introduction of the opt-in to apply to existing members was not given cover by the Salisbury convention, and that he would make that very plain in his speech in the upper House, if we were to try to restore that position. I mean no criticism of those who wrote our manifesto—it is a wonderful document that will live through the ages—but their wording was not so precisely established as to secure that additional application of the opt-in to existing members of trade unions.

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

We in the Scottish National party reiterate our complete opposition to the Trade Union Bill. Can the Minister confirm that it would be strange, on a piece of legislation that affects 6 million workers, for a Government not to consult bodies that represent those 6 million workers? Can he also confirm that the Government were considering concessions as far back as 26 January, when a memorandum in his name was leaked to many media outlets? Can he confirm what ongoing discussions he is having with devolved institutions, which still have major problems with the Bill and its extent as it relates to facility time and other issues?

[Nick Boles]

The hon. Gentleman made a valuable contribution to our deliberations at all stages, but perhaps especially in Committee. I seem to remember that his criticism was both vocal and incisive on almost every measure in the Bill. Of course, he is right. Not only do we hold discussions with institutions in society about which we are legislating—I think it would be a little unfair if we did not—but we actually invited them to give evidence to the Committee. One of the most terrifying sights that I have seen in a long time was the general secretary of Unite, the general secretary of the GMB, the general secretary of Unison and the general secretary of the TUC all sitting in a row giving evidence to that Committee. Of course it was right to do that.

The hon. Gentleman is also right to say that we have consulted the devolved Administrations. I have had a number of conversations by phone and in person with Ministers in the devolved Governments, who have expressed some concern about whether all the provisions in the Bill should properly apply to them, although we are absolutely confident that all the provisions in the Bill relate to reserved matters and therefore apply to everyone and every trade union in the United Kingdom.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I chaired the Trade Union Bill Committee, and therefore I am not going to comment on the Trade Union Bill, but may I make a general House of Commons and constitutional point? There would be concern if, as part of the ping-pong process, any Government at any time made concessions on a Bill as a result of something that had nothing to do with that Bill. My hon. Friend is an honourable man, and I am sure that he can confirm that no Government of which he was a part would ever do that.

[Nick Boles]

I think I have explained pretty clearly what the process was. I speak for myself in simply saying that when I met the immovable force of Lord Burns, I decided that perhaps discretion was the better part of valour. That is not to say that Ministers do not have discussions on all sorts of issues with all sorts of people in society. It is the Government’s policy to support the remain campaign. The previous general secretary of the TUC is a board member of Stronger In and has been for months. The trade unions that I have listed made their positions very clear long before the Bill came back to this House or, indeed, the opt-in was considered in the upper House. I gently say to my hon. and right hon. Friends that not every compromise is a conspiracy.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

Now that the Government, according to the barmy idea that is being propagated this morning by the right wing of the Tory party, are seemingly prepared to give way on different subjects, can I ask the Minister: what is the price for dropping this lousy, rotten Trade Union Bill altogether? I will try to get it.

[Nick Boles]

It is the goal of my life to give pleasure to the hon. Gentleman, but I have to tell him that there is no price, because we believe in this Bill. We believe in our manifesto, and we are well on the way to delivering it.

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

I hope that the Minister will understand why people are asking these questions when we read from a senior political journalist in The Telegraph the following words:

“Last night a union source said bosses had always been clear that it would be ‘difficult’ to spend significant amounts on the campaign to keep Britain in the union while fighting against the Trade Union Bill. But they revealed that unions will now step up their campaigning and funding efforts in light of the concessions”,

Can he confirm right now that this journalist is absolutely wrong, that her sources are incorrect and that no such trade took place?

[Nick Boles]

I am afraid that I will just have to repeat what I have already said. There is a natural process towards the end of a parliamentary Session in which concessions are made on Bills to secure their timely passage. What trade unions decide to do about their long-standing commitment to back the remain campaign is entirely a matter for them.

[Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Lab)]

I think this is a very rare occurrence of the Government actually listening to Members of Parliament both in the upper House and in this House. I welcome that, and it is the right thing to do. It is right that the Government should meet trade unions—of course they should. The legislation is an attack on trade unions and does nothing whatsoever for employee-employer relations. It is a wrecking piece of legislation, and any concessions can only improve the Bill. I hope we can have more concessions in the short time left for the Bill’s passage.

[Nick Boles]

The right hon. Lady is far too kind to me. I did not want to listen at all. I am afraid I simply acknowledged that, faced by an array of forces—it is not just led by Lord Burns, but includes most of the Cross Benchers, all the Liberal Democrats, all the members of Labour party and very influential Conservative peers, such as Lord Forsyth, Lord Deben, Lord Balfe and Lord Cormack—neophytes in this game like me perhaps need to concede defeat.

[Mr Speaker]

It is true that the noble Lord Cormack is a very special “parli-a-mentarian”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Boles]

My hon. Friend’s father did not just make it to other place, but made it into the Cabinet and was a very significant performer in the area of employment law and industrial relations, so we have much to learn from his work. My hon. Friend is right. I hope it is not breaking a confidence to say that I have had conversations with other Members of the House who were deeply concerned about this specific provision. I should not mention their names, but they include very significant—in fact, leading—supporters of the campaign to leave the European Union.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Has there ever been any psychological explanation of why so many Tory MPs have such a loathing of trade unions?

[Nick Boles]

I do not recognise such loathing, and I certainly do not feel it myself.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

May I join my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) in congratulating the Minister on the way in which he has handled the Bill? Again, is it not the case that the Minister has had conversations with many people from all parts of the House, including on the Government Benches, both in the Commons and in the other place, about their concerns and that many of those concerns have now been addressed without any concessions at all being made to us?

[Nick Boles]

I can confirm that, and none was more important than my hon. Friend, who had some very serious concerns. He did exactly the right thing: he came to see me privately about them as we were deliberating in the House. He tabled an amendment on Report, which he did not move because I had reassured him that we would look at closely as the Bill progressed. Yesterday, when he was not in the Chamber, I specifically mentioned that he had been influential in our decision ultimately not to press ahead with the measure that would have removed the check-off arrangement for trade unions in the public sector.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

I declare an interest as someone who has paid the political fund levy since 1969, and is a former president of Unison and a member of the TUC general council. I assure the House that the trade unions are quite clear that they do not want the Bill at all. When the Government were pushing this Bill they were reminded that even Winston Churchill spoke against what they are trying to do. I will also say very clearly that, whatever gossip people are hearing, there is no doubt that the trade unions would have funded the Labour party’s remain campaign, because they realise that the people who the Prime Minister of this country described as swivel-eyed loonies and the other right-wing reactionaries who would deregulate this nation will be worse for working people. Whatever the outcome of the Bill, and even if it had not been changed at all, I am convinced that the trade unions would have been in that position on behalf of their members, putting their money where their mouth is.

[Nick Boles]

The hon. Gentleman’s words speak for themselves and are very powerful.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

This is a shabby political episode. The Government have been caught diluting trade union legislation to persuade the trade unions to come on board with the campaign to stay in the European Union. Is it not clear that the Government, big business, the big banks, the BBC and now the big trade unions are all ganging up on the British people to try to persuade them to stay in the European Union?

[Nick Boles]

Nothing pains me more than to have angered my hon. Friend, as I clearly have. I have huge liking and respect for him; whenever he asks me to visit his constituency I drop everything to come, because I just think he is a great man. But I reject what he has said. Unlike in any other case, perhaps in this case he is blinded a little by his passion for the issue. I simply point out that all he need do is look at the front pages and editorial pages of every single newspaper that is traditionally seen as a Conservative supporter to see that there is a balance of opinion in this debate and his arguments are being well represented.

[Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

Given the impact the Bill will have on workers’ rights across the whole of the United Kingdom, what discussions has the Minister had with the devolved Administrations since the Lords amendments?

[Nick Boles]

I have not yet had that pleasure, but I anticipate it.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

This is a very simple issue, on which the Minister could give a very straightforward answer. The allegation is that the Trade Union Bill was watered down for the benefit of the trade unions on the understanding that they would then make a considerable donation to the campaign to stay in the European Union. Will the Minister give us a clear denial, with the authority of the Dispatch Box, that any such discussions took place with Ministers or officials, and that in no way whatever was the watering down of the Bill done with any mention of funding from trade unions for the EU remain campaign? It is very simple for him to deny it if it is not true.

[Nick Boles]

I aspire—and probably always will—to be as straightforward as my hon. Friend. I have been very clear: we went through a process of negotiation, not just with shadow Ministers but with members of other parties and none in the other House. We have secured a package that, I have to say, I do not believe any hon. Member on the Government Benches would have predicted; when we introduced the Bill, no one would have predicted that we would have secured as much of it as swiftly and as easily as we have, because it was probably the most politically controversial Bill in our original Queen’s Speech. As for decisions by trade unions to back the campaign for which they had already declared long before yesterday’s consideration of the amendments to the Bill, the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) spoke very clearly when he said that the trade unions would have supported the campaign wholeheartedly and full-throatedly anyway, because they believe that it is in their interests and the interests of their members to do so.

[Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)]

I do not think that there was anything so grubby as a deal, but if an agreement was reached I congratulate the Opposition Chief Whip on showing how politics can be done. May I urge the Minister now to ask the private sector to follow the leadership of the trade unions and contact their employees to make the case for Europe and the terrible threats to jobs, investment and growth if we leave a single market of 500 million consumers?

[Nick Boles]

I am not sure, Mr Speaker, whether you would count that question or my likely answer as directly relevant, but I will venture on until you stop me. It is clear that the overwhelming majority of businesses, small and large, have many beefs about the European Union—I do, too—but ultimately think that it is in our interests to stay. I agree with the hon. Gentleman to this extent, that I think all of us should be doing all we can, whether financially or in other ways, to encourage the people we represent to see that their interests are best protected by staying in.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) who asked this urgent question speaks passionately on behalf of his own union, which is the general and municipal union of Brexit bigots. [Hon. Members: “Order!”] It is extraordinary that he asked for the adviser on ministerial interests to be woken from his slumber—that adviser has been virtually unemployed since he was appointed, after the previous holder of the office, Sir Philip Mawer, resigned because he believed that he should have been called in to investigate the conduct of the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), who gained absolution through resignation. As Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, why on earth is the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex not demanding an inquiry into the two Ministers who gave £3 million to Kids Company in the face of advice from civil servants, three days before it collapsed? It is because the office of the adviser has been degraded and politicised. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Calm down. Calm. The benefit of yoga, even for Ministers, should not be underestimated. Let me intercede briefly because there were calls of “Order” when the hon. Gentleman used a word about Members on the Government Back Benches. I did not intervene because I judge that to be a matter of taste. There is no imputation of dishonour and—I mean this in no unkind spirit—the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), and other likeminded souls, are perfectly capable of looking after themselves. Their honour has not been impugned in any way, and that is why I did not intervene. The remark stands, and the Minister must reply.

[Nick Boles]

There are no bigots on the Government side of the House, least of all my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), or any hon. Friend who disagrees with me on this subject. The hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) does himself no credit by hurling that kind of playschool abuse across the Chamber. He is a disgrace, the comment was a disgrace, and he should withdraw it.

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

[Nick Boles]

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

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

Today is International Workers Memorial Day, which serves as a poignant reminder of why we need good and strong trade unions in our society. I also think it right that the trade union movement is opposed to many of the measures in the Bill, which is an attack on how it operates on behalf of its members. On the substantive point of the urgent question, the Bill is not yet legislation and has not been enacted. Surely the fact that a Labour-affiliated trade union has decided to donate some of its Labour-affiliated political fund to a Labour-supported campaign is perfectly within the law.

[Nick Boles]

The hon. Gentleman is correct.

[Mr Speaker]

I am extremely grateful to the Minister and all colleagues.

Trade Union Bill

Nick Boles Excerpts

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

[The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles)]

I beg to move Government amendment (a) to Lords amendment 2.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

With this we will consider the following:

Government amendment (b) to Lords amendment 2.

Lords amendment 17, and Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) to (c) to words restored to the Bill.

[Nick Boles]

The measures in the Bill aim to modernise the relationship between trade unions and their members and strike a fairer balance between the rights of trade unions and the rights of people who rely on public services, by ensuring that strikes happen only when unions have secured a clear, positive and recent democratic mandate. Consideration in the House of Lords has made important changes to the Bill, the great majority of which the Government believe will improve the Bill. However, the first group of amendments deals with those issues on which the Government do not support the proposed changes.

The first group is about electronic balloting and facility time. We have reflected carefully, in the light of the strong views expressed in debates in this House and in the other place, and I will take each issue in turn. As I have said before, the Government have no objection in principle to electronic balloting. I have also said before, and I am happy to say it again at the Dispatch Box, that it is likely to be common in 20 years’ time. We are seeking a degree of sensible caution on this matter.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister will remember our many conversations about this in Committee. He says that he is not opposed to electronic balloting in principle and he accepts that it might come in. We can see the Lords amendment before us and there are moves towards a pilot scheme. Electronic balloting is used by many organisations including the Law Society, many businesses and indeed the Conservative party for the purposes of the mayoral elections. Why not just do this now?

[Nick Boles]

I have greatly enjoyed debating the many detailed clauses of the Bill with the hon. Gentleman over a long period when he occupied a different post on the Opposition Front Bench, and if he will give me time, I will explain why I am not quite ready to rush to the nirvana that he describes.

We are seeking a degree of sensible caution to ensure that important votes—these are indeed statutory votes—are safe and secure, so I am not asking hon. Members today to reject the clause added to the Bill in the House of Lords on electronic balloting. However, I am asking for agreement to a small but important change to ensure that we proceed prudently on the basis of evidence as we take this important step.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

The Minister will no doubt have seen the evidence from the Electoral Reform Society that the incidence of fraud in electronic balloting is no different from the incidence of fraud in postal balloting. In the light of that evidence, what is his objection?

[Nick Boles]

The hon. Gentleman will have to be a little patient, because I am going to come on to talk about evidence from around the world of some of the problems that other systems have encountered when trying to embrace electronic balloting too quickly and without adequate preparation.

I appreciate from previous debates on the Bill in this House that there are differences of opinion about whether electronic balloting is sufficiently safe and secure. Lord Kerslake said that he personally was convinced that the case for it had been made, and we have heard from others in recent minutes that they too are so convinced, but Lord Kerslake was good enough to say that he appreciated that others were not. I remind the House that the Open Rights Group gave evidence to the Speaker’s Commission in which it neatly summed up the concerns over the security of online voting. It stated:

“Voting is a uniquely difficult question for computer science: the system must verify your eligibility; know whether you have already voted; and allow for audits and recounts. Yet it must always preserve your anonymity and privacy.”

That was the view of the Open Rights Group, and that is the view that we must investigate more carefully. Lord Kerslake explained that that was why his clause, added to the Bill in the other place, required that a review should be commissioned.

There have already been many reviews looking into this matter, such as those carried out by Electoral Reform Services, WebRoots Democracy and, of course, the Speaker’s Commission on Digital Democracy. They have made encouraging comments about a move to electronic ballots, but none has been able to provide assurance on managing the risks. While there is still this doubt, I can see merit in exploring the issues further. And of course the important difference is that this review will be specifically in the context of electronic ballots for industrial action. So, in accepting that there should be a review, we accept the spirit of the clause on electronic balloting. In fact, we accept virtually the entirety of the amendment made by the Lords on electronic balloting.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I understand the position that the Minister is setting out, but I am struggling to understand his logic. If he is saying that electronic balloting is neither secure nor anonymous, is he implying that when Conservative party members vote for a particular candidate online in an internal Tory party election, it is neither secure nor anonymous?

[Nick Boles]

With the greatest respect, I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that that is an internal election within an independent organisation. We are talking here about statutory elections, which are important because the public has a deep interest in their result and it is quite right that we should hold them to a higher standard than we do others.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

The Minister sounds almost guilty of double standards on this issue. He says that he has accepted the majority of the Lords amendments, but he has neglected to adopt any of those components that require substantial action by the Government. What possible objection could he have to piloting an e-balloting scheme? I think he realises that he just does not have a reasonable argument against it.

[Nick Boles]

If Opposition Members will just give me a minute, they will be able to hear my argument. Then they can decide whether they think it is reasonable or not.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Boles]

No, I am now going to satisfy Opposition Members by setting out my argument, after which I will be happy to give way if they want to comment on it. There is only one element in the amendment made by the House of Lords with which we cannot agree and that is the strategy for roll-out, which prejudges the outcome of the review and irrevocably commits the Secretary of State to press ahead with a strategy for the roll-out of electronic balloting, irrespective of the review’s findings.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I am interested to hear what the Minister says about that. The last Labour Government piloted e-voting, and the Electoral Commission report afterwards indicated that there was no evidence of fraud or other things, but what did for it was the scandal around postal voting in certain areas. There was no evidence in the report that e-voting was any more corrupt or inefficient than any other type of voting.

[Nick Boles]

If the hon. Gentleman is correct and if there is no problem, the review will conclude so and will report to Parliament that there is—

[Mr Jones]

rose—

[Nick Boles]

No, I am not going to give way again; I am going to carry on with my argument. The review will report accordingly to the House.

The power to permit electronic balloting already exists in section 54 of the Employment Relations Act 2004, but we have not yet exercised it because we have not been convinced, and neither have any previous Government, including a Labour Government that held office for 13 years, that the system would ensure privacy, opportunity and minimise the risk of fraud and malpractice. There has been much positive progress in the way that technology can help to address such issues, which is reflected in the reports I have cited.

We have been clear that we will be willing to use the power when we are convinced that the concerns have been adequately addressed. The legislation is framed in a way that requires us first to be satisfied on such matters, and for good reason. That is why, instead of a strategy for roll-out, I am today seeking agreement to a statutory requirement for the Government to publish their response to the review, which would be laid before Parliament, making it readily accessible to hon. Members, who could ask questions and raise matters in the House in the usual way.

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

Before the Trade Union Bill reached the House of Lords, the Minister wrote a letter to ministerial colleagues that was leaked to the Socialist Worker, for which the Minister may have an explanation. Will he confirm that he will use secondary legislation to put e-balloting in place should the pilot be successful?

[Nick Boles]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I can assure you that my relations with the Socialist Workers Party or its newspaper are probably rather less good than the hon. Gentleman’s, so it was not through my good offices that it got hold of any document—not that I accept that it did get hold of any document.

The hon. Gentleman asks a reasonable question, and I have made it clear that the Government have no objection in principle and that we expect statutory elections eventually to move towards online voting, but we will do that with trade union strike ballots when we are convinced that such voting is safe. That is why we want an independent review that will report to Parliament. I will not prejudge its outcome, because if I did, it would be slightly pointless to have the review in the first place.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

rose—

[Rachael Maskell]

rose—

[Nick Boles]

I am happy to give way and will do so first to the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Anderson]

The Minister said before that online voting was okay for the election of the Tory candidate for Mayor of London because the Conservative party is an independent organisation. I hope that he would accept that trade unions are also independent. Did the Tory party carry out a review into how secure the system was before it set up the discussions for having electronic voting for the Tory mayoral candidate?

[Nick Boles]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman heard my previous answer and he must recognise that these are statutory elections. Internal elections for candidates in any party are not statutory. They might be subject to problems, but that is a problem for the organisation, not for the public. The public have a right to expect a higher standard in the consideration of statutory elections.

[Stephen Doughty]

rose—

[Nick Boles]

I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman; he has had a go. I will give way to the hon. Members for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) and for York Central (Rachael Maskell), who have not yet had a go, but all hon. Members are welcome to speak in this debate in their own right, so it would be right to make some progress.

[Dawn Butler]

I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to speak. He says that it might be pointless to have a review and all the other various stages, and I agree with him. A review of the technology is pointless, because it already exists. It has already been mentioned that the Conservative party has used the technology and, as a previous programmer, I can tell the Minister that it already exists and is secure. It has been used not only in various businesses and independent organisations, such as the Conservative party, but in “The X Factor” and various other TV shows. The Minister does not need a report; he just needs to move on to the next stage.

[Nick Boles]

The hon. Lady is a fan of “The X Factor” and so are many of us, but she will recognise that, important though it is to the public, “The X Factor” is not a statutory election. While I am absolutely happy to acknowledge her expertise, I hope that she will acknowledge the evidence of the Open Rights Group. It is not a Tory front organisation—she can investigate it—but an independent specialist organisation that gave evidence only last year and said that there were specific issues to overcome. She will also have to explain to the review why it is that several countries have experimented with online voting and then reversed the decision because they found it to be unsafe. The review will allow us—

[Rachael Maskell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Boles]

Of course. I did say that I would give way to the hon. Lady.

[Rachael Maskell]

Will the Minister be specific and say how electronic voting is less secure than postal voting, which has additional risks?

[Nick Boles]

No, I will not be specific, because we are going to set up an independent review involving people with real expertise in the matter. The hon. Lady will be welcome to give evidence to the review, which will produce a report that will be laid before Parliament. She can then interrogate the report and the Government’s response.

[Mrs Flick Drummond (Portsmouth South) (Con)]

On the point being made by the Opposition about the Conservative party’s online voting, I found it impossible to get on to the site and was unable to vote for my candidate in the mayoral election. Did my hon. Friend experience the same issue?

[Nick Boles]

I did not have that issue, but that does show that there can be issues with online voting, as there can be with postal voting. While it is not a matter of enormous public interest, because it was not a statutory election, we would be very worried if a statutory election, such as a union strike ballot, was subject to the same level of problems.

[Chris Stephens]

rose—

[Nick Boles]

Have I not given way to the hon. Gentleman already? I will give way one more time and then I will get on.

[Chris Stephens]

Is the Minister seriously suggesting that whoever is the Conservative party candidate for London Mayor is not a matter of interest to the public? I find his argument bizarre.

[Nick Boles]

I am quite happy to explain again that it is not a statutory election.

The review will allow us to consider again the case for e-balloting and ensure that we have assessed the latest technology. Taken together, the review and the Government’s response will enable the Secretary of State to make a properly informed and transparent decision about the risks of achieving safe, secure electronic balloting, and therefore whether such a system should be rolled out.

[Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)]

The Minister has invited us to contribute to the review. I wonder whether he will accept electronic submissions or do we have to get our quills and parchment out?

[Nick Boles]

The hon. Lady makes a good point—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) suggests that submissions should be inscribed on vellum, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office has a particular enthusiasm for that means of communication, but I prefer the more modern kind, so I suggest that an online submission—perhaps even by WhatsApp—might be appropriate.

Turning to the reserve power to cap facility time, the Government do not agree with the Lords amendment.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

As my hon. Friend knows, I am in favour of electronic voting, but the route that he is taking is the correct one. The one real fear out there, which can be put paid to right now, is that this approach is designed simply to delay the onset of online voting. Will he tell the House that, when the Minister receives the report, it will be dealt with with appropriate dispatch?

[Nick Boles]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his contribution on this and other important matters. He has made a significant contribution to the improvement of this Bill. On his particular question, the amendment that we propose agrees with the noble Lords that this review should be commissioned within six months and then reported to Parliament. I have made it clear that we have no objection in principle to e-balloting. If the review suggests that it is safe to embrace, we will proceed with it. I think he will have noted that the amendment specifically suggests that we should be able to introduce pilots. One issue with the existing provisions is that it might not be possible to do a pilot without going for a full application. Such pilots might well be an appropriate phase after the review has been completed.

Let me return now to facility time and the facility time cap. The Government do not agree with the Lords amendment and, in consequence, I am moving amendment 17, which brings back the reserve cap, but with safeguards that respond to the concerns that were expressed in our debates and that led to the deletion of the clause in the other place and were the subject of quite forensic inquisition in both Houses.

Together with the publication requirements, it is my view that a reserve power to cap facility time to a reasonable level delivers our manifesto commitment to

“tighten the rules around taxpayer-funded paid facility time for union representatives.”

I shall reiterate what I said when this House was previously considering the Bill. We are not seeking to ban facility time. That has never been our intention. Our strong preference is that transparency alone should be enough to change practices in the public sector, with employers voluntarily reducing their costs where they are found to be spending more on facility time than is reasonable.

[Chris Stephens]

The Minister is being very generous. In the aforementioned leaked memo to which I referred earlier, there was an indication that there would be concessions and discussions with the devolved Administrations in relation to facility time. Will he confirm whether consultations have taken place with the devolved Administrations, or whether it is his intention to dictate to the devolved Administrations what the facility time should be for their own workforce?

[Nick Boles]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand that I never comment on articles in the Socialist Worker. He will also understand that we have regular conversations with Ministers in the devolved Administrations, but all of the matters addressed in this Bill are reserved matters. It is a matter not of dictating, but of this Government fulfilling their duty to legislate on the matters for which we have exclusive responsibility.

[Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)]

Specifically on the point about devolved powers, is it not the case that in that letter the Minister received legal advice saying that there is a very weak case for enforcing those powers on the Welsh Government?

[Nick Boles]

The hon. Lady, who made an admirable and, for me, rather challenging contribution to our deliberations in Committee, knows that we do not comment on legal advice.

If publication, and the proper monitoring and recording that it necessitates, do not achieve the aim of bringing excessive spending on facility time back down to a reasonable level, it will be necessary to consider the imposition of a cap. A reserve power is very much a power of last resort.

[Mr Anderson]

rose—

[Nick Boles]

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I wish to explain what we are now proposing, because it is a little different from what we proposed previously. I will give way to him before I conclude on the facility time cap.

A reserve power is very much a power of last resort. Although our amendment 17 brings back the reserve power, we are not simply replicating the provision that this House considered previously and that was deleted from the Bill in the other place. The amendment before the House today incorporates a number of safeguards that will trigger how and when the reserve power to cap facility time would be exercised. We have listened to the concerns of Members of this House and the other place and have sought to address those concerns in the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

rose—

[Nick Boles]

Let me finish this bit, because I am trying to explain what is different about what we doing. I will then be very happy to give way to my hon. Friend.

[Mr Anderson]

And me.

[Nick Boles]

Of course.

It is our intention that exercise of the reserve power will not even be considered before there are at least two years of data from the bodies subject to the publication requirement. Following the publication of the second year’s data, should a particular employer’s facility time be a cause for concern, having regard to all relevant factors, the Minister will send and publish a letter to the employer drawing attention to the concerns. The employer will have the opportunity to set out the reasons for the level of facility time. They will then have at least a further year from the date the Minister notifies it of concerns to make progress on its facility time levels. Nothing will be done until a third year’s data have been published. Only then will the Minister be at liberty to exercise the reserve power and make regulations to cap facility time for those employers.

[Mr Anderson]

A person who enjoys facility time will spend a lot of that time trying to manage huge reorganisations and redundancies, most of which are the responsibility of the Minister’s former Government. Can he explain what he means when he says things such as “excessive” and “reasonable”? Over the past four years, Gateshead council has lost 48% of its budget and 2,000 people have been made redundant. People have been engaged day and night, trying to redeploy and retrain people. How on earth is a Minister in Whitehall going to be able to pull all that together and say, “Well, that works for them, but it does not work for others.”? It is nonsense.

[Nick Boles]

The hon. Gentleman is right. What is reasonable can vary according to the organisation and the situation of that organisation, which is why we want to collect two years of data before we establish what seems to be a reasonable level by looking at comparable organisations. I will come on to the fact that we will also be creating the possibility of removing the cap from an organisation if it has a particular situation, such as the one that he describes, that would justify a much higher level of spending on the different kinds of facility time.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

What my hon. Friend is trying to make explicit is that, across the trade union movement there are shop stewards who do an excellent job, day in, day out, but there are some situations where the facility time is taken advantage of. One merely has to think of Grangemouth. Can he be clear on this? He has struck the right balance in the way that he looks at things, but at no time has he said that all shop stewards are swinging the lead or that a lot of valuable work goes on.

[Nick Boles]

I am very happy to confirm and applaud what my hon. Friend said. In truth, I would be as worried if an organisation was declaring no spending on facility time as if it was declaring excessive spending on facility time. Helping people with training or with health and safety issues is not just appropriate, but vital in a well-run organisation. He will recognise, as will Members across the House, that there have been agencies and Departments—we have had direct dealings of this within the civil service—that were allowing an abuse of the system. We want to restore confidence in the system by making it clear that we need transparency. If there is still excessive behaviour, we will introduce a cap.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

In order to try to help the House understand why you feel that there is a need for this cap on facility time, could you tell the House what percentage of public sector employers excessively grant facility time and how many of them would this cap be beneficial in stopping?

[Nick Boles]

I am not at all sure, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether you feel that there is a need for a cap, but I think the hon. Gentleman was referring to me.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Let us clear that up. The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) will get used to the fact that if one says “you”, that means me. If one says “the hon. Gentleman”, that means the Minister.

[Nick Boles]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thought that for your sake I should clarify that.

The hon. Gentleman asks a very reasonable question, but I hope he understands that until we have applied the transparency clause, we do not know the current level of spending across the broader public sector, so we cannot judge which organisations are spending in excess.

[Wes Streeting]

rose—

[Nick Boles]

No, I will finish. We know that when we introduced a similar provision in the civil service, we found that some organisations were acting perfectly responsibly and others were allowing an abuse of the system, hence we introduced a cap in the civil service. That has saved the taxpayer money and has not in any way undermined the proper fulfilment of responsibilities by trade union representatives. I shall now make some progress—

[Stephen Doughty]

rose—

[Nick Boles]

Well, okay. I have such a soft spot for the hon. Gentleman.

[Stephen Doughty]

The Minister is indulgent. I appreciate his generosity. Given some of the rhetoric from some of his ministerial colleagues and others about the matter, does he recognise that people might have a reasonable suspicion that even after collecting the data, the Government might seek to use these powers perniciously, going after particular groups whose practices they are not happy with, rather than using the powers in the way that he describes? Does he accept that that is a reasonable suspicion?

[Nick Boles]

I do not. After all, I am the Minister and I will be in charge of this until the Prime Minister decides otherwise. The hon. Gentleman has had enough time to judge whether or not I am sincere. He will also note that in the amended proposals that we are putting forward today, there have to be three years’ data before we can introduce a cap, and that where there is some concern about the level of spending we have to allow the organisation an opportunity to explain why that level of spending is appropriate. That responds in part to what the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) said. Partly through the good offices of hon. Members in this House and in the other place, there are now greater safeguards to ensure that there can be no abuses.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I am a bit confused about what the cost will be of a Minister or civil servants sitting down and sifting through mountains of data from every council and every public body covered by the provision to determine whether facility time has been abused, when from his own lips the Minister has just admitted that he does not know whether there has been any abuse. If there is not a problem, why are we bringing in this expensive system that is impossible to regulate?

[Nick Boles]

I do not accept that it will be expensive. Although there are no data because the transparency clauses have not yet been applied, I point the hon. Gentleman to estimates that the public sector as a whole spends on average 0.14% of its total pay bill on facility time, the civil service spends 0.07%—half of that—and the private sector spends 0.04%. I can promise him that if he multiplies the pay bill of the public sector by that percentage, he will arrive at a very large figure indeed, and a great deal more than the cost of implementing these clauses.

[Wes Streeting]

rose—

[Nick Boles]

I have been generous and I will be generous again, but I shall try to make some progress.

As I indicated, the amendment provides that the cap may be disapplied for as long as necessary and to the extent necessary for individual employers. This would enable a temporary lifting of the cap for one or more specific employers, and we propose to use it in circumstances where the employer and Ministers consider it necessary. We envisage that should a particular employer experience a need for more facility time, perhaps during a period of change or following a particular incident, Ministers can allow this so that facility time can be increased to respond to the circumstance. The reserve power that this amendment would deliver is considerably improved from the version that was deleted in the other place, and I urge the House to support it. I commend the amendments to the House.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I want to make it clear right at the outset that we remain opposed to this Bill. Despite some of the changes that it has undergone in another place, it remains a dreadful, mean-spirited, partisan, petty piece of legislation. Having got that off my chest, I recognise that Members in another place have made a valiant attempt to make a silk purse out of this particularly malformed sow’s ear, so that after today it may end up being a slightly less ugly sow’s ear than it was, but it will remain a malodorous porcine lug, for all their lordships’ noble efforts.

Many of the changes that peers made are welcome if we consider the crudeness of the Bill in its original form. On the first group of Lords amendments and the Government’s response to them, Lords amendment 2 was passed in the other place by 320 votes to 181, requiring the Government to commission a review of electronic voting in industrial action ballots within six months of Royal Assent. After the review, amendment 2 would require the Government to publish a strategy for rolling out electronic voting.

Government amendment (a) would revise Lords amendment 2 so that Ministers are required only to publish a response to the review, but need not take further action to actually introduce e-balloting. The Government have consistently resisted e-balloting on the grounds that they still had concerns about the safety of electronic voting, despite the fact, as many hon. Members have pointed out, that the Conservative party used electronic ballots for the selection of its London mayoral candidate, although I suppose the Conservatives may now be regretting that, given the poor performance of the candidate they selected using that method. Perhaps that explains the Government’s concern.

It is clear that the Government’s real objection to e-balloting and, indeed, to workplace balloting, which we argued for unsuccessfully in this House and in the other place, has been that they do not want high turnouts because their new threshold barriers could be more easily reached if more people were more easily able to vote.

Not only will all ballots for industrial action require a minimum 50% turnout under the Bill, but those working in the loosely defined “important public services group” will face an additional hurdle of needing a 40% yes vote from all those eligible to vote. That means that these thresholds place higher requirements on those industrial action ballots than on any other democratic process within the UK. For example, the 50% turnout threshold was not reached for the last London Mayoral election or most local government and devolved elections.

The Government have agreed that Ministers should be required to commission an independent review of the use of e-ballots for industrial action within six months of Royal Assent. They have agreed that it will be possible to run pilots as part of that review, as the Minister said, but the Government are proposing that after the review Ministers would need to publish a response, but not necessarily to take any further action. There would be no requirement to publish a strategy for rolling out electronic voting.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

I do not know whether future Prime Minister Gove will appoint the Minister to the Cabinet—we shall have to wait and see—but the right hon. Gentleman is exactly right. That is why the Government’s amendment is unnecessary and dilutes the effect of accepting the rest of this Lords amendment. However, I am seeking to put on record the fact that, should any future Minister take another path, having had a clear recommendation in the report, one could only interpret their intentions as less than honourable.

[Nick Boles]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Could you advise me whether it is in order for the House to spend quite so much time talking about my career prospects, because I do not feel that that is really helping?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I am not sure whether that is good or bad for the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones]

First, I declare an interest as a member of the GMB. My wife also works for a trade union.

We often hear the cry from Conservative Members that the turnout in union ballots is not high enough. We have before us a mechanism that would at least assist with that, by getting more people to participate in e-balloting. I have seen some pretty poor excuses for statements, but today’s statement about why we cannot introduce e-balloting for trade union ballots must win the prize for the poorest argument.

This Government pride themselves on wanting to be an e-Government on everything from driving licences to the new universal credit, which can only be accessed online. The Minister said the Government need to be convinced that e-balloting would be secure, but in response to numerous interventions from Labour Members, he did not articulate the reasons why he thought the process was in any way insecure. I would respect his position more if he came up with reasons and said what the problems are. The idea of a review is clearly the classic civil service “kick it into the long grass” approach.

[Nick Boles]

I do not want to take up time because lots of Members want to speak, but may I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to elections conducted in the Philippines? Interestingly, a company called Smartmatic—chaired by a former Labour Minister, his colleague Lord Malloch-Brown—was put in charge of conducting online voting for the entire population of the Philippines. There was a hack, in which the identity data of 70 million people were stolen, and a report said that every registered voter’s data were open to abuse.

[Mr Jones]

I know this Government love things foreign, but may I tell the Minister, with great respect, that he need not go very far to find examples of where e-voting has worked and there have not been any problems? I am referring to the pilots that took place in 2004, including in my constituency and others in the north-east, after which the Electoral Commission’s report found no problems with e-voting. He will obviously want to go on a fact-finding trip to the Philippines to look at this—I am sure we would all welcome his going there—but the fact is that he just needs to look at has happened in this country.

I must say that the Minister put up the very flimsy defence to the question, “If it’s all right for the Conservative party, why is it not all right for the trade union movement?” I would have respected his position if he had come up with concrete reasons why he thought electronic—[Interruption.] Well, he cites the Philippines, but has he actually looked at the Electoral Commission’s report on e-voting in 2004? It quite clearly stated that there was no issue of fraud or any risk to security. The fact that the Government then got cold feet about what I must say was a rather hysterical campaign against postal voting is neither here nor there.

--- Later in debate ---

Ballots: 40% support requirement in important public services

[Nick Boles]

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

Lords amendments 3 to 6.

Lords amendments 7 and 8, Government motions to disagree, and Government amendments (k) to (p) in lieu.

Lords amendments 9 to 16 and 18 to 29.

[Nick Boles]

The amendments improve the Bill and take account of a number of points of concern raised by Members of both this House and the other place. This is a raft of amendments, and I hope hon. Members will understand if I focus on the highlights in the order in which they appear in the Bill.

The 40% ballot threshold relates to strike action in important public services. The broad reference to “ancillary workers” has been removed and a “reasonable belief” defence for unions has been added. Those changes provide more clarity and certainty for unions and employers.

On the timing and duration of industrial action, the ballot mandate has been extended from four to six months, and to up to nine months where the union and the employer agree to that. That responds to concerns that four months was simply too short a time to enable both sides to resolve a dispute.

On the provision to provide two weeks’ notice of industrial action to an employer, the Bill now continues to allow for the current period of only seven days’ notice, where the employer and the trade union agree to that.

On picketing, there was great concern in this House, but less so in the House of Lords, about the Bill’s reference to “armbands”. That reference was taken from the original picketing code, which has been in force for a great deal of time. We do not want picket supervisors mistakenly believing that they must wear an armband. I hope that that will be welcome, particularly to my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), who is not in his seat, but who eloquently raised concerns about the issue.

The House debated at length the principle that union members should make an active choice to contribute to a trade union’s political fund. The other place established a Select Committee on Trade Union Political Funds and Political Party Funding under the chairmanship of Lord Burns, and I would like to place on record my gratitude to him and all the members of the Committee for their deliberations on this question.

The Bill has been amended to reflect the Select Committee’s recommendations on opting in. Our manifesto commitment suggested that we wanted to extend the opt-in principle for trade union members, and the revised provision meets that commitment. In future, all new trade union members will have to make an active choice to contribute to the political fund through an opt-in.

Our amendment corrects some legally defective drafting in the amendment tabled by Lord Burns and agreed to by the Lords. In particular, instead of the certification officer being given responsibility for issuing a code of practice, our amendment places a statutory obligation directly on unions to provide an annual reminder to existing members of their rights to opt out. That complements the position for new members, who will be required to be offered the right to opt in.

We have also improved requirements on unions to report details of political expenditure in their annual returns. That reflects the debates that we had about the importance of that issue in assisting union members to make informed decisions about whether to contribute to a union’s political fund. At the heart of the provision is transparency and proportionality.

The Bill has been amended to require reporting on all expenditure from a union’s political fund, including to causes and campaigns, but it also fixes what became characterised as the onerous obligation for the union to report on “every bus fare”. Instead, unions will be required to report on the total expenditure going to each political party or organisation in each of the categories.

Finally, the other place rightly agreed to increase parliamentary oversight of regulations that could seek to lower the reporting threshold once it has been raised and therefore increase the regulatory burden on trade unions.

On check-off, we had robust debates in this House, and there were equally robust debates in the other place. Those debates related to union subscriptions being deducted automatically from wages in the public sector. The Bill we welcome back to the House allows check off to continue where the costs are met by the trade unions and on the basis that union members have the option of paying subscriptions by other means. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), who is not in his place, made an eloquent argument for an amendment on this very issue, and I indicated on Report that we would look at it closely as the Bill went through the House of Lords. I therefore hope that he is satisfied with the decision by the Government to accept this amendment. I pay tribute to him for his work, both privately and publicly, in making the case for this important change.

Our manifesto committed us to reforming the role of the certification officer. The Bill removes the requirement for the certification officer to be able to act in some areas only where a complaint has been received from a member of a trade union. Instead, the certification officer will be able to look into issues that come to his attention from third parties, or in the course of his duties. However, the provisions have been amended to increase the independence of the certification officer by ensuring that he is not subject to ministerial direction. As I have said previously, the certification officer is under no obligation to act on complaints or representations from third parties.

Nevertheless, concerns were raised that spurious or vexatious complaints could tie up the certification officer’s resources and, indeed, place an unfair burden on trade unions. The Bill has therefore been amended to require that the certification officer must have reasonable grounds to suspect a breach before appointing an inspector to conduct an investigation. I am confident that this will protect unions from vexatious complaints and over-zealous regulation. However, I am happy to assure hon. Members that we will keep this under review to see how it works out in practice. In response to human rights concerns, the judicial oversight of the certification officer has been strengthened. The Bill has been amended to allow appeals to the employment appeals tribunal on the certification officer’s decisions on the grounds of fact as well as law.

I hope that hon. Members will welcome the amendments. I believe that they improve the Bill, and I hope the House will see fit to accept them.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

I call Kevan Jones.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nick Boles Excerpts

Monday 25th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)]

10. What discussions she has had with education providers on area-based reviews of post-16 education and training provision.

[The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles)]

I wish I could claim to have run the London marathon, like my hon. Friend the Minister for Children and Families. I went on only a two-mile run this morning and it nearly finished me off. To answer the hon. Lady’s question, I have regular meetings with post-16 education providers about area reviews and all the issues that those throw up. I am also holding meetings with hon. Members once area reviews produce recommendations for any changes in provision in their area.

[Liz McInnes]

A particular concern of my constituents is mergers between colleges and the potential for young people in rural and suburban areas such as mine to be forced to travel long distances to get to college. What funding would be available from the Department for students forced to travel further as a result of closure or amalgamation of their courses? Would the Department consider reinstating the education maintenance allowance?

[Nick Boles]

The hon. Lady will be aware, first, that any of the recommendations that come out of an area review that might include proposals for a merger have to be accepted by the colleges themselves. They are independent corporations. In my constituency I also have a very sparsely populated area with towns 25 miles apart so I understand full well the issues surrounding travel to course provision. Colleges can use funding, including the bursary funding, to contribute towards transport costs, but it is ultimately up to the college to decide whether it thinks that move is going to be good for it and its students.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend update the House on the position of area-based reviews of colleges which are in special measures? At the same time as colleges are being encouraged to merge, inspectors and the people involved are not allowing such mergers to take place.

[Nick Boles]

I am not aware of the particular case that my hon. Friend refers to. If he wants to write to me, I would be happy to meet him to discuss it. In general, we do not want mergers to be rushed into before an area review has had a chance to look at the provision in a whole area, but we do not want to stop institutions making arrangements that help them address problems, so I am happy to look into the situation with him.

[Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

The Government want to promote apprenticeships in post-16 training and colleges, yet the proportion of apprentices with learning difficulties or disabilities decreased from 11% to 8% between 2010 and 2013. With the area reviews ongoing, an Ofsted report has just said that

“monitoring and evaluation of FE and skills provision for high needs learners…were ineffective.”

How effectively will the interests of young people in those positions, and those of children on the autism spectrum, be addressed, especially if area reviews force them to travel further to study in new environments? Will the Minister specifically guarantee decent outcomes for young people with disabilities?

[Nick Boles]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this important question. I recently had an excellent meeting, facilitated by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller), with groups representing deaf people, and I will shortly be holding a round table with groups representing people with other kinds of disability. It is essential to ensure that everyone can benefit from the opportunity of apprenticeships and other forms of technical education, and we are determined to do that.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

12. What plans she has to require all primary and secondary schools to become academies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

T7. At the end of last week, Tresham College, which has its headquarters in Kettering, announced draft proposals to end its A-level provision. I join local parents and students in opposing those plans but, should the worst outcome be realised, will the Minister make it clear to the college that it must do everything it can to ensure that those students who have already completed one year of their A-level course will be able to complete the second year at Tresham College?

[The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles)]

I am happy to reassure my hon. Friend that the college would have a clear responsibility to ensure that those students were able to complete their A-levels at another high-quality institution, and I would be happy to work with him to ensure that it lives up to that responsibility.

[Jo Cox (Batley and Spen) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State accept that all the evidence shows that being an academy is intrinsically neither good nor bad for a school’s performance? With expert opinion now lined up from the County Councils Network to the Bow Group, it is surely time to revisit this flawed plan to force schools to become academies against their will.

National Living Wage

Nick Boles Excerpts

Monday 18th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles)]

This has been an excellent debate. My, how we have missed the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh). We are all agreed on that. If she is listening, I hope that she is enjoying the hospital grapes. We look forward to her rejoining us and adding great wisdom to our deliberations. However, she was well represented by the right hon. Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan), who brought equal passion to her argument for working people in her constituency and across the land, who, as we all agree, deserve a pay rise.

I was struck by the fact that most Opposition Members failed to recognise the significance of the achievement. Call it a national minimum wage or a national living wage—I do not really care—but please recognise that it is a significant increase in the legal minimum hourly rate for workers across the country. I would have hoped that there might be a little more recognition of that, although I acknowledge that the right hon. Member for Enfield North and the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) were gracious enough to call it a step in the right direction. Indeed, the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) did the same from the Front Bench, even if there was a little sting in the tail, as there always is with him.

However, none of the Opposition contributors recognised why the Government are able to do this now, namely because of the steps that we have taken to ensure that the economy is strong. If the economy was weak, unemployment was rising and business failures were increasing, such an intervention would have been profoundly damaging to the British economy and to the interests of the working people whose pay we would like see increase. There would have been millions of job losses and a far greater loss of income than gain. The reason why we have been able to do this now is because of the difficult steps—every one opposed by the Opposition—that we have taken to secure a strong economy and to create the platform from which we were able to make this intervention.

[Barbara Keeley]

As the Minister is talking about the strength of the economy, will he comment on my points about the care sector, which is not strong? It is being hit with a bill of £330 million, but the Chancellor has refused even to bring forward funding from later years, as requested by the LGA, to meet the bill. In the meantime, we have people earning £3.50 or £3.89 an hour. That is the tragedy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Boles]

I do not accept the hon. Lady’s analysis. A total of £3.5 billion of extra revenue is being provided through the social care precept and the Better Care Fund, which is more than adequate to cover the cost of the living wage.

[Barbara Keeley]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Boles]

I will not give way again.

We agree that we want everyone to benefit from the pay rise that that national living wage represents. I want to be clear about how we will ensure, as a Government and as Members of Parliament, that that is the case. The first and most important thing is to ensure that all employers fulfil, in full and in every case, their legal obligation to pay the national minimum wage at whatever level it is set for those under 25 and the new national living wage for those over 25.

I can report to the House that we are enforcing the national minimum wage more robustly than any previous Government and will be enforcing it more robustly every year. In 2015-16, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs identified more than £10 million of arrears for more than 58,000 workers across the economy—three times the arrears identified in 2014-15 and for twice as many workers. I am delighted to be able to share with hon. Members that we will increase the HMRC enforcement budget to £20 million in 2016-17, which is up from £13 million in 2015-16 and from only £8 million in the last year of the Labour Government. Spending on enforcement of the national minimum wage and the national living wage next year will be more than double what it was in the last year of the Labour Government.

[Stephen Doughty]

Even if the situation were as rosy as the Minister paints it, which it is not, there are the underhand tactics of companies in cutting benefits aside from pay to offset the increase or even make workers worse off, which have been pointed out repeatedly in the debate. Will he respond to that? Does he consider those tactics underhand?

[Nick Boles]

If the hon. Gentleman will give me a moment, I will move on to discuss the enforcement of what I consider to be moral obligations that fall upon all employers capable of meeting them. First, let me remind him about the previous Labour Government, whom I am sure he supported. He was not in that Government—he was not yet in the House, and nor was I—but they spent only £8 million on enforcing the national minimum wage in 2009-10. At a time when they seemed able to spend unlimited amounts of money on almost everything else, they thought it rated only £8 million. We are going to spend £20 million next year, which is why the amount of arrears secured and the number of workers being helped is significantly greater now than it ever was before.

Furthermore, we have introduced the scheme of naming and shaming companies that do not pay the national minimum wage or the national living wage and do not have a good reason for explaining why. That has been an extremely effective approach. Hon. Members should see some of the letters I receive from employers trying to persuade me to exclude them from a naming and shaming round; they take it very seriously indeed, as they do not want their customers and suppliers, and indeed their neighbours, to know that they have broken the law. I do, however, agree with the hon. Gentleman that legal obligations are not enough—not for us as individuals and not for employers either. I welcomed the contribution of the hon. Member for Burnley (Julie Cooper), who talked about her experience in employing 10 people and insisting on paying them a proper living wage because that was good for them, for her as an employer and for the business. Without being too pompous about it, let me say that that is the kind of moral responsibility we would hope and expect every employer to seek to fulfil.

I recognise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) that some small employers will find the national living wage very difficult. I do not criticise them for an instant if they are not able immediately to ensure that every aspect of an employee’s conditions is preserved in full, because I am sure we would all agree that if the alternative is to fire some people, we would prefer to have more people being paid the legal national living wage than to have people losing their jobs. However, I am clear that for larger employers there is simply no excuse for trying to evade the effect of the national living wage by cutting other benefits and premiums.

[Richard Fuller]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Boles]

I will in a moment. First, I want to remind the House of the other measures the Government have put in place to benefit businesses, which are of substantial financial value to them.

We are cutting corporation tax from 20% to 17% in 2020, and the Chancellor announced an additional percentage point specifically to make up for the impact of the national living wage. Together, all our cuts in corporation tax since 2010 will be worth £15 billion a year to businesses. We have also introduced the employer allowance, which is now being extended from £2,000 a year to £3,000 a year. As many hon. Members mentioned, we have also expanded small business rate relief, and 600,000 small businesses will be paying no rates at all from 2017. We have taken a number of steps to ensure that businesses large and small can point to other savings that have come from the Government which they can use to fund in full the increase of the minimum wage, through the national living wage, without eroding other aspects of compensation.

Although I hope hon. Members will understand why I am not going to start naming names at the Dispatch Box, they will have observed that the work of the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden and of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise has been peculiarly effective. My right hon. Friend met one of companies that was much discussed and it has already shifted its position, and I know that other companies will do the same if the spotlight falls on them.

I wish to conclude by making this proposal to hon. Members in all parts of the House: please bring to me and my right hon. Friend any case of a company that seems to be trying to evade the spirit of the legislation in an unreasonable way. I am talking about companies that are profitable and will be benefiting from the dramatic cut in corporation tax, and companies that will be benefiting from the employer allowance or from the cut in business rates. Bring those cases to me and I promise hon. Members that we will use the full force of our office, little though it sometimes feels to be, to put pressure on those companies to live up not only to their legal obligations, which are our job to set out in making legislation in this House, but to their moral obligations, which are the ones we feel matter a great deal more.

Draft Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses (amendment) Regulations 2016

Nick Boles Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2016 General Committees

[The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses (Amendment) Regulations 2016.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson.

We need a strong and efficient labour market—a market that gives people opportunities to find appropriate jobs and that gives employers access to the kind of labour that matches their skills needs—to maintain our economic growth and job creation. The recruitment sector plays an important role in making that happen by matching the demand for jobs to the demand for workers.

The sector is regulated by the Employment Agencies Act 1973 and the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003—the conduct regulations. It is important that we reduce the regulatory burden on employment businesses and employment agencies as far as is possible, while increasing the opportunities for British workers to apply for British jobs.

Last year, the Government consulted on a package of measures, building on the previous consultation under the coalition Government, to remove a number of business-to-business regulations and to strengthen the existing legislation that prevents employment agencies and businesses from advertising jobs in other European economic area countries without advertising them in Great Britain and in English. I was inclined to skate over the specific deregulatory measures in the hope that the Committee would not be that interested in each of them, but I find myself facing the hon. Member for Cardiff West, who will have some very tricky questions for me, so I will detain the Committee with a little more detail on each of the deregulatory measures.

Regulation 9 of the conduct regulations, which is being removed, prevents employment agencies and employment businesses from claiming to be acting on one basis to the work-seeker, while stating something different to the hirer. There is little evidence that the regulation serves a useful purpose. We do not need free-standing regulations to underpin a standard that would be enforceable to some extent through contract law or, in cases of fraud, through general criminal law.

Regulation 11 ensures that employment agencies and employment businesses cannot enter into a contract with a hirer on behalf of a worker, and vice versa. The regulation applies to all agencies and businesses, but it is mainly relevant to those operating in the entertainment and modelling sectors. We are removing the regulation because there are sufficient protections in other parts of the conduct regulations, including regulation 16.

Regulation 17, which is also being removed from the conduct regulations, requires employment businesses to obtain agreement to terms with hirers. Although it is important for employment businesses to agree terms with hirers, we believe that it is a business-to-business arrangement and that the two parties should have more flexibility when agreeing such terms.

Regulation 23(1) of the conduct regulations covers situations in which more than one agency or employment business is involved in the supply of a work-seeker. We propose to remove the provision that requires agencies and employment businesses to make checks on one another. We also propose to remove the requirement for them to agree the capacity in which they are acting, which will be done as part of the business-to-business relationship, without the need for regulation.

We will keep the provisions in regulation 23(1) on sectors in which fees may be charged to work-seekers, which generally happens only in the entertainment and modelling sectors. However, we propose to amend the regulation to remove the references to employment businesses. Employment businesses—organisations that place workers on a temporary basis and continue to employ them while they are on assignments—are not widely used in those sectors. Additionally, if an agency in those sectors uses an employment business to supply a work-seeker, regulation 12 should ensure timely payment for the worker in any case.

We also propose to remove from schedule 4 to the conduct regulations the requirement to include certain particulars in the records kept by employment agencies and employment businesses relating to work-seekers. Those records will no longer need to include the date on which the application was received, details of any requirements specified by the work-seeker in relation to taking up employment, and the date on which the application was withdrawn or the contract terminated.

The final deregulatory measures that we are proposing will amend schedule 5 to the conduct regulations and remove schedule 6, thereby eradicating the requirements to include certain particulars in the records kept by agencies and businesses relating to the hirer. Those records will no longer need to include the date that the application was received; the hirer’s name, address and location of employment, if different; the terms offered in respect of the position the hirer seeks to fill; a copy of the terms between the employment agency or business and the hirer; and any document recording any variations, names of work-seekers introduced or supplied, and details of each resulting engagement and the date from which it takes effect.

Removing schedule 6 will eliminate the requirement for agencies and businesses to keep particulars relating to any other employment agency or business. The amendments proposed to schedules 4 and 5, and the removal of schedule 6, will remove the burden of unnecessary record-keeping on agencies and businesses, while having no detrimental impact on the protection of workers.

I turn to the banning of overseas-only recruitment. The current regulation 27A prevents employment agencies and businesses from advertising specific vacancies for a job based in Great Britain in other European economic area countries without advertising it in Great Britain and in English either before or at the same time. As part of last year’s consultation, we sought views on extending the regulation to apply to generic recruitment campaigns. That will close a loophole and increase the opportunities for British workers to apply for British jobs. The proposal will not stop agencies recruiting overseas or in additional languages; we are just trying to ensure that there is a level playing field for British workers by giving them equal access to work through agencies.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

We agree with that part of what the Minister is proposing. However, does he acknowledge that, in response to the Government’s consultation, only two organisations in the whole country said that they had information about jobs that had been advertised solely in other EEA countries? Is there any further evidence that there is a genuine problem?

[Nick Boles]

I am happy to get back to the hon. Gentleman if there is any further evidence, but even two is two too many. The measures will reassure people. Even if the loophole is not necessarily being abused a great deal, the provision will reassure people that British workers are being given a fair crack at any job opportunity that opens up in this country.

That brings me to the conclusion of my introductory comments, and I hope that the Committee will support the regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Boles]

I anticipated that the forensic zeal of the hon. Member for Cardiff West would not be wanting today; it has never been lacking in any of our previous engagements. As ever, he asked some extremely good questions.

We are entirely at one in recognising that agency workers are potentially vulnerable and open to exploitation. When we started this process, we asked ourselves which laws and regulations protect those potentially vulnerable workers, whether they are being enforced effectively, and by whom. We may end up discovering that the only difference of opinion is that we do not think that the regulations that we propose to repeal or amend are, in practice, necessary to protect potentially vulnerable agency workers from exploitation, because there are other, more effective protections that can be and are being enforced.

I hope that our good faith is underlined by the fact that, as the hon. Gentleman noted, although we originally proposed to remove regulation 27, we listened to the feedback in the consultation, in which respondents raised concerns that it might disadvantage work-seekers if we removed the specification of what should be included in job adverts, and concluded that we should not remove it.

Let me turn to the regulations that we are proposing to remove or amend. I will do my best to reassure the hon. Gentleman. Regulation 9 prevents agencies from acting on one basis for work-seekers and stating something different to hirers. The reason we do not believe that removing it will put work-seekers at risk is that we have not received any evidence of that through the work of the employment agency standards inspectorate or from most of the responses. I acknowledge that the Trades Union Congress took a different view, but no specific evidence has been provided that employment agencies and businesses do claim to act in a different capacity. Therefore, we do not believe that the removal of the regulation will have a negative impact.

I guess that, if there is a philosophical difference between the Government and the Opposition, it is that we do not want to have regulations that are theoretically useful, but unnecessary in practice. We want to be persuaded that regulation is necessary in practice. I am advised that there are existing protections in contract law to protect people, for instance, from misrepresentation by an agency or employment business that cover the sort of abuses the hon. Gentleman is worried about. I repeat that the employment agency standards inspectorate, which sits within the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, has not given us any evidence of this particular situation arising.

Regulation 11 ensures that agencies cannot enter a contract with a hirer on behalf of a worker, and vice versa. It would most likely protect work-seekers in the entertainment and modelling sectors. The reason we have decided to remove regulation 11 is that we believe that sufficient protection already exists in those sectors through regulation 16, which ensures that an agency that is permitted to charge work-seekers a fee for finding them work must agree the specific terms with the worker, including whether the agency is entitled to act on their behalf in concluding a work contract. Given the existence and retention of regulation 16, we do not believe that the removal of regulation 11 is likely to have a significant impact.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the removal of regulation 17, which requires employment businesses to obtain agreement to terms with hirers. He raised the concern that that would leave work-seekers at risk of not being clear what terms of employment businesses had agreed with hirers. Again, we believe that the terms agreed between the employment business and the hirer are properly part of the business-to-business relationship, and that the two parties should have more flexibility when agreeing terms. The existing regulation imposes a potential criminal liability, which we think is disproportionate for such a business-to-business relationship.

The work-seeker would not be affected by the removal of regulation 17, as the terms of employment between the work-seeker and the employment business would still need to be agreed in line with regulations 14, 15 and 18, all of which we are not proposing to remove. We believe that the work-seeker’s interests are explicitly protected and that the agreements between the employment business and the hirer are, in a sense, a matter for them.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the amendment to regulation 23. It may be that there is a slight lack of clarity on our part here, although I hope not. We believe that we are amending the regulation to remove employment businesses from its scope. That is because this regulation mainly affects those in the entertainment and modelling sectors, where employment businesses are not widely used. If an employment business is used in such a capacity, we believe that sufficient provision exists in regulation 12, which ensures that a work-seeker is paid, so there will not be a lack of protection, even though we do not believe that employment businesses generally operate in the relevant sectors.

I hope that I have given the hon. Gentleman some reassurance, but I am happy for him to come back to me if not.

The hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts asked about the extent to which there have been discussions with the Scottish Government. The consultation was public and open to anyone to respond to. As he will be aware, employment law is a reserved matter, so we believe that most of the consultation respondents, both positive and negative, including the TUC, were acting as representatives of workers in Scotland and the other devolved Administrations, because employment law is devolved. We did not specifically consult the Scottish Government because this is a reserved matter.

If there are no further questions, I hope the Committee will see fit to support the regulations.

[Kevin Brennan]

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive and thorough response, and for the courteous way in which he has dealt with the questions from the Opposition. To reiterate, we support the proposed change to regulation 27A, although he did not offer further evidence that it was a widespread and serious issue.

The problem for the Opposition is that we do not feel that it is proportionate and appropriate to remove the other regulations, given that we are talking about members of the workforce and work-seekers who are in the most vulnerable positions. If anything, this is a group of workers that is becoming larger as the labour market and employment practices and patterns change across the country. We are not here to debate why that is happening, but I think we would all acknowledge that it is. As I indicated in my remarks earlier, my constituency casework has involved increasing numbers of people who are concerned about how they have been treated in the workplace after being employed via an agency.

Notwithstanding my gratitude to the Minister for his thorough and serious response, it is right that we register our opposition to the changes that he is proposing to the regulations, other than regulation 27A, by dividing the Committee.

Question put.