Trade Union Bill

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Stephens]

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

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for taking successive interventions. I was not a member of the Bill Committee. He is talking about the application of higher thresholds for industrial action. What consideration was given in Committee to the potential for wildcat union action as a consequence of the higher thresholds, because trade union leaders might be unwilling to take a vote for fear of not meeting the threshold?

[Chris Stephens]

No evidence was presented that that would be the case. What was raised was the impact that the thresholds would have on women workers in progressing disputes about issues that impact on them more than on male workers, such as the introduction of shift changes. The Bill Committee did not touch on the issue raised by the hon. Gentleman.

According to the Office for National Statistics, the number of days lost to industrial action per year has fallen dramatically over the past 30 years. Since 2010, an average of 647,000 days have been lost to industrial action each year, compared with 7,213,000 days per year in the 1980s. In 2014, there were only 155 stoppages as a result of industrial action, with 55% taking place in the private sector and 45% in the public sector. Most industrial action is short-lived: in 2014, 64% of all stoppages lasted for only one or two days, with 93% of the workers taking part in the industrial action.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens]

That is correct. I had never heard of Health 2020, and under the skilful questioning of the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens) it was revealed that the witness was a former Conservative candidate. When she mentioned her concerns about patient care, I said that a trade union is obliged to provide life and limb cover, but the witness had not heard of that either; and as the hon. Lady mentioned, she did not know what facility time was.

[Richard Fuller]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way because I am trying to develop a theme with my questions about the Committee. I asked about thresholds and what consideration the Government gave to wildcat action. Will the hon. Gentleman speak about the restrictions on facility time and what the Government say about the potential for wildcat action if there is less time for trade unions to deal with workplace disputes?

[Chris Stephens]

Wildcat action was not discussed in Committee. We discussed the social media provisions that could lead—as the hon. Member for Gateshead pointed out—to wildcat tweeting, but there was no discussion about wildcat action in that sense.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Boles]

The hon. Gentleman, with whom I have had very lively and enjoyable debates in Committee, knows that the provisions in the Bill apply under the devolution settlement throughout Great Britain and to all institutions, including those active only within Scotland.

In conclusion on these amendments, Parliament has put in place proper procedures for considering what should be reserved to Westminster and what should be devolved to other Administrations. Debates took place in this Chamber only yesterday on what should be devolved and what should be reserved to Westminster. Employment and industrial relations law is reserved.

Turning to other balloting methods proposed in amendments tabled by Opposition parties, it is vital that union members, employers and the public have the utmost confidence in ballot processes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) argued so clearly. Without that, the integrity of the whole system would be called into question; members would not use it, unions would not rely on it, and employers and the public would not trust it. That is not in anyone’s interests.

As I said in Committee, and as the Prime Minister has said, we have no objections in principle to the introduction of e-balloting. I expect that in some time—maybe in five or 10 years—the practical objections I am about to outline will have been overcome. It is simply a matter of time and human ingenuity. However, there are practical objections, and the Opposition cannot just dismiss them. The onus is on them, in proposing new forms of voting, to show that the objections can be overcome.

The Speaker’s Commission on Digital Democracy received evidence from the Open Rights Group, and I quoted that evidence on Second Reading. This February, Jim Killock, its executive director, gave an interview to The Guardian, in which he said of online balloting:

“This is a very hard problem to solve and so far nobody has managed it. Accountability in most software systems means a clear audit trail of who did what, which of course would violate the basic question of secrecy…You have the complexity of making sure that internet systems are secure, that the voting equipment can be trusted despite being attached to the internet, and that every voter’s machine is not being tampered with. Given the vast numbers of machines that are infected by criminally controlled malware and the temptation for someone to interfere in an election, internet voting is a bad idea.”

I am not aware that the gentleman quoted is a Conservative or that he supports the Government. [Interruption.] Instead of shouting at me, Opposition Members should reflect on the objections raised and work with us to try to overcome them. We are absolutely open to discussing these practical objections, and to working with the Opposition parties and anyone else in society to overcome them.

[Richard Fuller]

My hon. Friend has spoken about problems with processes, but we are talking about some of the most venerable institutions in our country: trade unions. At this early stage of the Parliament, with five years of important discussions to have with trade unions across the country on wages, terms and conditions, productivity and efficiencies, does he want to say to trade union leaders that the Government do not trust them to run a ballot?

[Nick Boles]

I want to say to trade union leaders that when they can overcome the objections listed not by me, but by experts from groups such as the Open Rights Group, the Government will be happy to work with them to implement new forms of balloting. Until then, however, we remain to be persuaded.

My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon is right that there is no requirement for primary legislation to introduce new forms of balloting. It can be done under powers in section 54 of the Employment Relations Act 2004. On that basis, I urge the House to reject the amendments.

EU Merger Control

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2015 General Committees

[Nick Boles]

Those are two excellent questions. On the first, I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Government’s response to the White Paper specifically suggested that the priority should be to ensure that all EU member states should have, as we do already, a domestic regime for the review and, if necessary, control of the acquisition of minority shareholdings. If they did, we could be satisfied that issues relating to the putative purchase of one German airline by another would be covered. Although the hon. Gentleman is of course right to say that consumers in the broader EU might be affected by such a transaction, they are unlikely to be affected more than consumers in the market in which those two companies have their operational bases. I believe that Germany does have a national regime on minority shareholdings, but many other states do not. If such a regime is present, it should be capable of reflecting the interests of consumers from across Europe.

On the second point, the hon. Gentleman is right that tax dodging can be a driving force behind acquisitions, but it is not specifically about competition. Ensuring that the taxes due are received is an important issue of public interest, but it is not for the competition regime, which is about protecting consumers’ interests, to be the adjudicator in such a situation. I am unable to explain the detail to him, but many discussions are taking place at all sorts of levels about the problem of shifting profits around the world. Indeed, the Chancellor has made some fairly robust proposals about how that can be discouraged in the UK.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hanson. I have never taken part in a European scrutiny process, so this may be a naive question from me. Will the Minister confirm whether the proposals amount to everything in the EU’s 10-year review of merger policy? Is this the output from that review, or is it just the contentious piece? Is the purpose of the 10-year review that this will then lay the groundwork for the next 10 years?

[Nick Boles]

My understanding is that the White Paper reflects the sum total of the proposals that the Commission wanted to make following the review. It is worth acknowledging that there was a loose throwaway line at the end of the White Paper that seemed to suggest that, in the perfect future envisaged in Brussels, the EU would control everything, but the White Paper contained no such specific proposal. We have responded to all the proposals, as I have outlined. This is not in the Commission’s work plan for the current year, so we do not anticipate early action to take any of the proposals forward. There is certainly no indication of the Commission coming forward with other broader, more far-reaching proposals.

[Richard Fuller]

I thank the Minister for that. On the understanding that the proposals are it and that they look forward for the next 10 years and not wanting to drag the Minister too far into hypotheticals, will he confirm that the rules on mergers apply to the single market and not to the eurozone? We are likely to see a substantial change in the eurozone over the next 10 years with much more consolidation and co-ordination of fiscal policies. The concern with the merger policy is the emergence of a North American Free Trade Agreement-type arrangement in which we end up being Canada, but all the decision-making rules on mergers are produced by one set of countries that have much more common fiscal and economic frameworks. Will the Minister comment on this set of policies and the broader set of merger policies from the review in the light of those likely changes over the next 10 years?

[Nick Boles]

I am going to resist the urge to speculate in an area in which I can claim little expertise. I simply point out to my hon. Friend that this country retains strong laws and, more importantly, strong institutions that will continue to act under the policies and guidance set out by the UK Parliament. I do not anticipate anything that might happen in the eurozone undermining our own regime. The EU regime applies to the single market. As my hon. Friend will be aware, our right hon. Friend the Chancellor is very busy today seeking to secure guarantees that the single market will not be shanghaied by the eurozone for its own purposes and that there will be protections for those of us who are enthusiastic participants in the single market but will never be members of the eurozone. I am sure that that would include any attempt—not that we have any indication that there will be one—to dilute the regime or overburden it for the sake of eurozone members. We would resist such an attempt very strongly, but we have no sense that that is on the agenda.

[Richard Fuller]

My final question relates to trade treaties, particularly the transatlantic trade treaty, which will create a broader market in which there will be free and open competition. What is the likely impact of the application of this measure to a treaty with the United States and other countries? Has the United States been part of the consideration of this measure or of the overall merger policy in the European Union?

[Nick Boles]

I will not even venture to give an answer off the hoof, because that is not a subject considered in the White Paper, but I am happy to write to my hon. Friend and copy in members of the Committee on that question.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That the Committee takes note of European Union Document No 11976/14, a Commission White Paper: Towards more effective EU merger control, and Addenda 1 to 3; and supports the Government’s approach of questioning the proposal to widen scope of the EU Merger Regime (EUMR) to include acquisitions of non-controlling minority shareholdings, given that the evidence does not suggest it is justified.—(Nick Boles.)

School Expansion

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Monday 19th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Nicky Morgan]

My position is very clear. The existing grammar schools are popular with parents, and when an application such as this is made I will consider it just as I would consider an application for any other school expansion. I am meeting one of the Bradford Members of Parliament later this week to discuss this. My task, rather than fighting other battles, is to ensure that all schools in a local area are excellent. There are some excellent schools in Bradford, but there is more to come.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

I commend my right hon. Friend for ignoring ideology and making a straightforward judgment on how she can improve the number of good school places. Does she recognise, however, that the test for this Government will be whether we provide more good schools, and good school places, in areas that have had educational underachievement and economic deprivation for a long time? Does she also recognise that, in carrying out that task, her responsibility will be to be the champion and nurturer of people who want to set up free schools? Will she rise to that challenge as strongly in the next five years as we have done over the past five years?

[Nicky Morgan]

I absolutely will be that champion. The latest application round for free schools has just closed, and the appetite to set up new ones remains undimmed. I have already made it clear that we now have 1 million more children in good or outstanding schools than in 2010. My task is to focus on the next million, and on those who follow them, to ensure that every child in the country has access to an excellent place. Free schools are very much a part of the answer.

Trade Union Bill

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

First, as the hon. Gentleman will know, employment law and industrial relations are reserved matters. Secondly, as he is no doubt aware, the Conservative party won a majority at the United Kingdom general election.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend was absolutely right to have a consultation on the additional 40% hurdle. He has talked about it in reference to the emergency services and other important services, but does he not agree that there is another issue: if we compare changes in strike action in the public and private sectors since the end of the last century, we see that over that 15-year period the number of strike days in the private sector has halved, but in the public sector the number has doubled?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Johnson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In fact, the RPC has said that the Bill is not fit for purpose. I will come to that in a second.

[Richard Fuller]

I hope I pass the “Teletubbies” hurdle for intellectual input. On the point about the numbers that strike, what consideration does the right hon. Gentleman give to the number of people impacted by strikes? When he was a Minister and subsequently, has that been a consideration in his thoughts about how unions’ right to strike should be regulated?

[Alan Johnson]

Of course industrial action has an impact, which is why, as I said, no trade unionist, trade union leader or trade union shop steward would ever contemplate industrial action unless it was as a last resort. When there was a protest in Parliament Square, as there frequently are, I was inconvenienced. The Hull fun run on Sunday was an enormous inconvenience. We do not attack democracy and democratic institutions on the basis that some people are inconvenienced by them. We either accept the right to strike, as the Secretary of State said he did, or we make facetious arguments about its having an effect on other people, in which case, just like Mussolini and Hitler, whose first action it was, we ban free trade unions. But that is not what the Bill is about, as I understand it.

[Richard Fuller]

rose—

[Alan Johnson]

No, I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once already, and he did not pass the “Teletubbies” test.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald). I am delighted to have been able to sit through this debate, because once one gets over the bluster and extreme rhetoric one sees that points have been made by Members on both sides that will be helpful to the Minister in examining the Bill in detail as he takes it into Committee. We have heard about the Bill’s importance for union leadership, for union members and, most importantly, for the public as a whole, but I come to this House with a background in business, so I wish to make a couple of comments from its perspective.

The issues that affect people in a strike come from a breakdown in a partnership between those who operate businesses and the people who work within them. The most important criterion for business is that private sector businesses have benefited tremendously from a 30-year consensus on the way in which industrial relations have operated in this country. It is therefore important for business to hear from this House today that that consensus, on both sides of the House, both today and in the months ahead, is continuing as far as it can.

Secondly, it is important to point out the difference between what has occurred during that period of consensus in the private sector and what has happened in the public sector. In the last four years of the last millennium—1996 to 1999—there were 199,000 days lost from private sector strikes, compared with 278,000 from public sector strikes. In the past four years—2010 to 2014—the number for the private sector had more than halved, to 74,000, whereas the figure for the public sector had more than doubled, to 573,000. Something in this consensus is working in the private sector but not working so well in the public sector. A particular issue is that in three of the past five years one area of the public sector, education, accounted for more than 50% of public sector strikes.

I ask the Minister to consider some specific points. First, on the issue of the 40% additional threshold, I am pleased that the Government are looking at consultation, but the points made about the ability of the union leadership to control and minimise wildcat strikes do carry quite a weight. It would be interesting for the Minister to consider whether the notice period of 14 days before strike action will achieve most of the goals that are seen as required for that 40% threshold. May I encourage the Minister to include in clause 6(1), on information to the certification officer, a provision about the outcome of the industrial action? That information is useful for members, too. If they are asked to go on strike, they should know what the consequence of the strike was—what they achieved by it—so they can see whether such action is playing a good role.

There are extensive new roles for the certification officer, and business would like to be assured that this will not lead to additional disclosure requirements on business in the future. An industrial dispute still has two sides; one may be out on strike but the other side is dealing with that strike. We are placing information requirements on the trade union, but will there be a need for any similar information requirements on or disclosure by business?

Finally, on privacy and free speech, will the ministerial team listen carefully to the points that have been made, because we do not want trade unionists going about their business in towns across the country inadvertently finding themselves criminalised? I am sure that that, on its own, would undermine the consensus. I hope the Minister will examine those points carefully in Committee.

Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jo Swinson]

I am glad to be able to get on to the debate on part 4 of the Bill, which is about pubs. There was considerable debate in Committee on the measures to introduce a pubs code adjudicator and a pubs code, and I am sure that we will have another lively debate today. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Business and Enterprise has already mentioned, there is considerable interest in this matter in all parts of the House, and it is important that we have good scrutiny of the Bill.

New clause 6 ensures that the definition of a tied pub does not inadvertently capture restaurant or hotel premises, which was a concern raised in Committee. We are aware of one fish and chip restaurant chain that could meet the conditions set out in clause 63, and it is possible that there are others. We all know a pub when we see one, and we all know the difference between a pub and a fish and chip restaurant, but defining that in legislation can prove difficult, particularly given increased food consumption in pubs, which is in large part the result of the hugely successful smoking ban making the experience much more enjoyable. That is a new way in which pubs have diversified, and indeed increased their income, but it makes separating them by legal definition more complex.

New clause 6 therefore provides the Secretary of State with a power to exempt a particular type of tenant or premise from the pubs code in secondary legislation, so that we can ensure that it is only pub premises that are in scope. For the avoidance of doubt, amendment 58 sets out that regulations created through the exercise of that power will not be subject to the hybrid instrument procedure.

There are two other big issues addressed by the amendments in this group. Our discussions today obviously follow many years of consideration by the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills, which has, along with its predecessor Committees, looked in particular at problems in the tied pub sector—I think that there have now been four reports. I would like to pay tribute to the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), who I see is here, as well as to his Committee and its predecessors for all their work to ensure that the problems were heard, investigated, documented and addressed.

We heard concerns from Members on both sides in Committee about smaller companies and family brewers being covered by the statutory code and adjudicator. We also heard assurances, through the evidence submitted by smaller companies and family brewers, that they would continue to fund the voluntary regulation system, which I know many hon. Members feel strongly about.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

The Minister says that there were concerns, but will she also acknowledge that the Government were defeated in Committee because of the strength of those concerns?

[Jo Swinson]

Absolutely. We have been considering how best to respond to those genuine concerns. This Government have no wish to overburden small business. Indeed, we have done a huge amount to reduce regulation on business, particularly small business. Of course, this is a small business Bill. We are trying carefully to strike the right balance between helping smaller pub-owning companies and helping individual tenants and small business people who are struggling with some of the difficulties documented in the Select Committee reports.

We have listened to all the concerns put to us and, on further reflection, have decided not to press amendments 29 to 33, 41, 43 and 44, which were designed to reinstate smaller pub companies within the scope of the statutory pubs code, albeit with lesser requirements. Instead, we will bring forward amendments in the other place to change the exemption to those companies that own fewer than 350 tied pubs. We think that strikes the right balance between preventing overburdening of genuinely small family brewers and ensuring adequate protection of tied tenants in a way that is proportionate.

The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) made the point in Committee that a threshold of 500, which would have been set out in the Bill, would not have ended up capturing some groups that perhaps would have been expected to be captured. This change will ensure that the adjudicator’s attention, and indeed the costs of compliance with the measures, is focused on the largest companies in the sector and on the end of the market where most complaints originate.

[Richard Fuller]

I just want to clarify what the Minister said. I think that I might be seeing the deft hand of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Business and Enterprise, who seems to be the only one in the Department who understands small businesses. Can the Minister explain to the House what the big difference is between 500 and 350, or is she just grabbing at a number that does not look like 500, which she said in Committee was the right one?

[Jo Swinson]

The hon. Gentleman could recognise and welcome the fact that the Government have responded to the concerns he raised and have moved on the issue, but he has chosen not to, given his comments about colleagues in the Department, with which I wholeheartedly disagree. We must ensure that we consider those concerns, but they were raised not only by his colleagues, but by my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert), who was a member of the Committee, and by Opposition Members concerned about the issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Swinson]

I regret the fact that my hon. Friend is disappointed, but he was often disappointed in the Public Bill Committee when we were not able to accept his amendments on a range of issues that, if taken together, would have undermined the purpose of the Bill. I know that he speaks up for his constituents and he represents one of the larger pub companies that has its base in his constituency, so I understand where he is coming from. His view of what needs to happen to address the problems and injustices in the industry is very different from that of many, and perhaps most, Members of Parliament. We want to make sure that we get the details right. We want to listen to the House. That is what a responsible Government do.

[Richard Fuller]

Perhaps I was unchivalrous earlier when I said that the Minister does not understand business. It is clear that the Government are on the run. This is the second issue on which they are proposing changes. What role has the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills played in these last-minute shenanigans?

[Jo Swinson]

Yes, the hon. Gentleman was unchivalrous and I am not sure he rescued the situation with that intervention. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Business and Enterprise, who is my fellow Bill Minister, and I discuss these issues as the hon. Gentleman would expect, as we try to make sure that we give the right response to the concerns raised in Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Toby Perkins]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point and precisely expressing the passion which so many of us feel for the pubs in our communities. It is precisely because so many of us are concerned about the changing face of the pub trade in our communities that the issue of the contribution of pub companies to pub closures has been so fiercely debated. It is because so many of us believe that the model under which pub companies operate is the cause of many of the pub closures that the Opposition have brought this matter to the House on many occasions, and many other Members have made that case. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that this debate is all about the strength of the industry, but it is also about having a sense of what exactly is being done to support it, and the question of pub companies is a key part of that debate.

I suspect that much of this debate will be about what divides Members, but there is real value in reflecting on what we are all agreed about, including the fact that this Government Bill contains provisions for a pubs code. The very fact that we are debating an issue that for so long seemed destined to elude this Parliament is a tribute to the dogged work not just of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, but of Parliament itself. Today still has potential to be a great day for this Parliament.

In reflecting on the contribution that Parliament has made on this question, notwithstanding my reservations about how the Government are handling this incredibly important debate, I want to pay tribute to the many hon. Members whose work has brought us to this point. In no particular order, those who deserve great credit include the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Sir Peter Luff) and my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey). They have both chaired the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, which produced diligent research on this issue in 2004, 2009, 2010 and 2011.

In 2011, the Select Committee finally came to the conclusion that the industry had had enough time to get its house in order and that the time had arrived for a statutory code with an independent adjudicator, open market rent assessments and a free-of-tie option. It is disappointing that it has taken more than three years to get from the Select Committee’s conclusion to the Bill before the House. It will be an even greater disappointment if we have to move away from the Bill and are told that there will be a further review in two years’ time to debate the whole thing again and decide whether we then need the free-of-tie option. What is more important than anything else is that Members do not let the opportunity to take real action through the Bill pass us by.

I want to acknowledge other Members. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) was the pubs Minister who empowered the Select Committee to be the arbiter of when the time for action had arrived. The hon. Members for Leeds North West and for Northampton South (Mr Binley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) led a cross-party campaign to ensure not only that we had a pubs code, but that it would make a real difference for tenants and create competitive pressure on pub-owning companies to ensure that they offered their tenants a fair deal.

I also want to recognise the Minister’s contribution. Notwithstanding what I said about how the Government have handled this Bill and how she has been badly let down on a Bill that appears to be changing in front of our eyes for what appear to be political considerations, the fact is that she did at least end the prevarication—at least, that is what I wrote down in my speech—that we endured under her predecessors. If this was Prime Minister’s questions, I would be told off for writing my script in advance, but that helps when we are going to be on our feet for a while.

To be charitable for a moment, at least we are here to debate the pubs code. The fact that the Minister’s predecessors constantly pushed for review after review and did not take action, while she came forward to say that there would be something in statute, is a source of tremendous credit. It is a shame that she has unfortunately been forced to come to the Dispatch Box to propose a review in two years’ time, with all the uncertainty that that will create. However, she has at least made an effort to get something on the statute book.

There are many other such hon. Members, but the strength of this campaign has been due to the fact that the push inside the House very much reflects the broad coalition in favour of the measures outside it. The case that we and other hon. Members are making today has been supported by a tremendous range of organisations, almost all of whom come under the Fair Deal for Your Local banner.

Just listen, Mr Deputy Speaker—not that you would ever not listen while in the Chair, but perhaps you will do so with particular attention—to the breadth of organisations that support this case. Such breadth makes the case more powerfully than anything else. The organisations include the Federation of Small Businesses, which does not usually demand regulations or that the business relationship between two parties should be put on a statutory footing; the all-party save the pub group, which is so ably chaired by the hon. Member for Leeds North West; the Campaign for Real Ale and the Fair Pint campaign; the trade unions Unite and the GMB; and the Guild of Master Victuallers and the Forum of Private Business.

There are also two support groups, Justice for Licensees and Licensees Supporting Licensees, which were set up to support licensees affected by what had happened in their relationship with the pub company. Such licensees have often been bankrupted or are facing bankruptcy as a result of having chosen to pursue their dream of running a pub. Who would have thought that a support group needed to be set up for people who have chosen to pursue a particular profession or work in a particular industry?

In some ways most significantly of all, the Punch Tenant Network, made up of tenants who run pubs owned by Punch Taverns, has come out in support of new clause 2. Those tenants’ business success hinges to a large degree on the strength—or weakness, depending on how they see it—of their relationship with their pub company, and they are saying that the hon. Member for Leeds North West and 90 other Members are right that the code should be put on a free-of-tie basis. If the network believed the scare stories that the industry is putting about—that the proposed changes will lead to an increase in pub closures, less choice for punters or increased unfairness in the industry—it would hardly be calling on hon. Members to support the new clause.

The House has heard in recent years from literally dozens of Members who are desperately trying to support pubs in their communities that are under threat—all victims of the great pubco scandal.

[Richard Fuller]

The shadow Minister has listed many people who have been involved in the debate on one side or the other. Now, at the moment when the Government are reversing the policy that they had in Committee, does he think it odd from the point of view of protocol that the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills is not here to explain that change in Government policy?

[Toby Perkins]

The hon. Gentleman has a valid point. We have all received a huge number of representations from members of CAMRA; from pub licensees; from many different organisations, some of which I have just listed; from the pub-owning companies themselves; and from the British Beer and Pubs Association. They have all been lobbying us in support of, or in opposition to, what they thought would be in the Bill. The Minister, whether by her own choice or because of the hand she has been dealt today, has had to say to the House, “Forget all the speeches that you have prepared and all the letters and considerations you have received on this complicated issue, because we are ripping up a lot of the amendments you thought you would be voting on. We’ll discuss some of them later; and on another one, we thought we might lose, so as a bit of a sop we’ll come back to it in two years if there’s still a problem.” It is a shambolic way to present a Bill.

I wish to be conciliatory and work constructively on the issue, but it reflects no credit on the Government or the House when people come to watch our debate, or watch it on television, and suddenly discover that the issues they have been lobbying their Member of Parliament on have been totally changed. It is an absolute shambles. I have some sympathy with the view that the Secretary of State should have been here to explain why the changes have been made. The Minister was unable to tell us whether he has been involved in the discussions—maybe she will want to clarify that now.

However, this is the point that we have arrived at, and I think we all recognise that when the Government are under pressure they will sometimes take the opportunity to discuss with Members in the run-up to a debate what form amendments will take. Let us make no mistake, though—this debate was scheduled for next week, so the Government could have had another week to consider what should be debated. For reasons best known to them, they decided to bring the debate forward and table last-minute amendments. Now, on the day of the debate, they stand up and say, “Forget all those amendments, we’re not doing any of that”. The hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) may well be right to apportion some responsibility to the Secretary of State, but either way, something that should be a source of pride to the House is now a source of embarrassment. I deeply regret that, because this is an important issue on which there is considerable agreement.

--- Later in debate ---

Our Opposition day debate in 2014 referred to the 500 pub limit as the point at which measures for pub companies should be introduced. It was therefore a major shock for family breweries, microbreweries and other small pub-owning companies to find not only that they had been brought within the scope of the Bill, but that many onerous requirements would be visited on a group of businesses that had been given every reason to expect they would not be involved.

[Richard Fuller]

rose—

[Toby Perkins]

I did not want to take many more interventions because many other Members wish to speak. However, if the hon. Gentleman feels that it would add a huge amount to the debate I will give way.

[Richard Fuller]

The shadow Minister is making an absolutely crucial point. I think he will have heard, as I did, the Minister say that three companies will be captured by the reduction from 500 to 350. Is the shadow Minister aware of what those three companies have done to incur the wrath of the Secretary of State to be included in the regulation?

[Toby Perkins]

I am not sure that I would necessarily accept that we are suggesting those companies are wrath-deserving. We are attempting to create a regulatory framework that is reliable, so that businesses know where they stand. The limit of 500 is arbitrary, as is the 350 limit. I suspect this is more about attempting to save political face than save the actual companies. Suddenly bringing smaller pub companies into the heart of the Bill is seen as an act of bad faith by the industry. Having lost the vote in Committee, and having then voted against almost exactly the amendment that they then attempted to bring back, which, for the avoidance of doubt was the one that is now not being brought forward, is a pretty shabby way to treat an important industry.

Members and the many thousands of CAMRA members who have written to us all in such impressive numbers in the very short period of time during which there has been an awareness of new clause 2 will be aware that the Opposition supported a free-of-tie option for pubco tenants. [Interruption.] Goodness me, this is a magical moment for the House! I can now say I was there when the Minister for Business and Enterprise, the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) actually attended proceedings on his own Bill. I can tell my grandchildren, “I was there!” He is here, Mr Deputy Speaker. Goodness me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Mulholland]

I am delighted that my hon. Friend has raised that issue. So let us all be clear; the clause, in primary legislation, cannot and will not apply to a single family brewer. All the family brewers—members of the Independent Family Brewers of Britain—have fewer than 500 pubs. The clause—in primary legislation to ensure that it cannot be changed—will not apply to them. The simple answer is that it will not and cannot affect them in any way. Surely Conservative MPs above all would like to see more competition and more ability for all brewers—regional and small microbrewers—to compete and to get their beer into pubs if it is good enough and if people want to drink it.

[Richard Fuller]

The Minister has just said that she wants to reduce the limit of the pub adjudicator from 500 to 350, which will start capturing some of the larger family brewers. Is he saying that he stands apart from what the Minister has said?

[Greg Mulholland]

That is helpful but I shall make it clear; the point of new clause 2 is that it is a stand-alone clause and has no bearing on that matter. I understand the position of those hon. Members with family brewers. They can support their family brewers if they wish by opposing new clause 6, but they can still support new clause 2, which, as I say, will apply not to a single family brewer but only to the large pub-owning companies. We have defined that very deliberately, which the Government failed to do despite our telling them that they should. A Member can vote for their family brewer by voting for new clause 2. To be clear; it is primary legislation and cannot then be changed without other primary legislation. It is not being put into the statutory code—secondary legislation—as some measures are. That is precisely why we have done it.

There has been a shameful campaign of misinformation against new clause 2 and the market rent only option from the usual suspects; the large pub companies and their mouthpiece, the so-called British Beer and Pub Association. In reality it is the big brewers and pubco association. They have been lobbying vociferously, making a whole stream of utterly baseless comments. It is simply scaremongering to suggest that somehow these companies offering a fair commercial rent to their tenants would cause collapse, chaos and closures.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Murphy]

That is a useful piece of information from my hon. Friend whose seat includes the headquarters and the brewery of Brains.

Finally, I understand the tactic that the Government are using. They think they will lose the vote today, because there are so many Members who believe in the things that we are talking about and who will join us in the Lobby. I am not sure that a review is the answer. A review will simply push the argument and debate further down the road. Oddly enough, those who oppose new clause 2 do not like the idea of a review, and those who support it do not much like it either. It reminds me of Aneurin Bevan who said, “When you are in the middle of the road, someone will knock you down.” I sincerely hope that the Government amendment will be knocked down and that Members from all parts of the House will support new clause 2, as it will have the greatest effect in every single one of our constituencies.

[Richard Fuller]

We have had a fractious debate today. The responsibility for that can be placed firmly at the door of the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, who has treated the House in a very shabby way. He has brought forward last-minute amendments and asked this House to take on trust that he can singly make massive and sweeping changes to this industry and that we should just trust him that his word is sound. He is proposing to affect an industry that has long been a mainstay of economies up and down this country.

I have very little confidence that the Secretary of State understands the industry on which he singly wishes to intervene. It is rather a poor show that he has not come to this House, but has instead left a very capable, but nevertheless junior, Minister to outline why the Government are retreating on one set of amendments, and looking to make changes in another set of amendments. That is no way for the proposed changes to be put to this House.

I speak on behalf of family brewers when I say that it is incredibly important that the Government keep the promise that they gave at the start of the consultation that those brewers would not be included in respect of the pubs code adjudicator. I was very pleased that my Conservative colleagues, along with the Opposition and the Liberal Democrats, voted to oppose the Government’s attempts to impose those regulations on small family-owned breweries. Today, the Minister has offered half a loaf back. She has said, “Well, we won’t do it for those who own 500 or fewer. We will do it for those with 350 or fewer. Just trust me, we will make it happen in another House.” I am happy that she is not pressing amendments 41, 43 and 44 today, but I am still at a loss to understand why there is an in-principle difference between 500 and 350. If it is a fact that just three family brewers are impacted by that change, there is a very serious issue about whether this is ultra vires legislation that is being felt by certain family businesses but not by others. I think the Minister will find that she will also have severe problems in the other House.

[Andrew Griffiths]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend’s analysis about plucking the figure of 350 out of the air. Does he share my concerns that this is a recipe for disaster, as we are bound to have legal challenge after legal challenge about what is a competition matter?

[Richard Fuller]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is one of the problems of trying to make policy on the hoof. Small businesses in this industry up and down the country will be looking aghast at the actions of the Secretary of State. Serious business people run these breweries. They have to make long-term investment decisions that affect themselves, their employees and their customers. To have a Secretary of State who makes his position clear on a Friday, but changes it by Tuesday and again when it goes to the upper House sends an incredibly poor set of signals to an industry that has to make those long-terms decision. To be quite honest, a Secretary of State for business should understand that and should have the decency to be here—[Interruption.] I am sorry, I should not say that. It would have been preferable if he had been here today so that he could explain his rather unforced flip-flop at the last minute, because these are unprecedented changes that he is putting forward.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful and impassioned speech. Does he not recognise that Ministers have tried at least to find some element of compromise? For those of us who had some concerns about this—I share the concerns, as they have been put to me by Fullers brewery in Chiswick—the change to 350 provides a reasonable compromise, and it will now go to the other place to be determined.

[Richard Fuller]

My hon. Friend, with his emollient and soothing words, makes a fair point. The Minister has done a fantastic job in presenting these compromises. However, they raise severe questions both in terms of the specificity of the number of companies that will be affected by this additional change and the fact that they were presented to this House at the last minute on a “trust us, we will change it” basis. Yes, it is a step in the right direction, but would it not have been so much better to have this sorted out before and to have included the proposals in the Bill or in the amendments so that we could debate them here today in this House?

This issue shows some of the problems with Government intervention on industry. Essentially, anyone who runs a business knows that they cannot trust the politicians. They cannot trust the politicians to keep the guidelines for the industry safe and secure if we have an interventionist as Business Secretary, and we certainly have that. They cannot trust the Government if they know that they will change the rules one week so that the next week they will affect the industry.

Living Wage

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Thursday 6th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

May I congratulate the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) and the Backbench Business Committee on bringing this vital issue before the House in living wage week? It is right that this week we welcome the forward-looking approach of many employers across the United Kingdom who now pay the living wage and have more productive and happier work forces as a result. We should also pay tribute to the tireless work of living wage campaigners in the trade unions, the Churches, the growing number of food banks and in broader civic society in Scotland, in common with civic society right across the United Kingdom. They have never settled for second best and envisage a country where a decent day’s work is rewarded with a wage that can give people dignity and the chance of a better life.

It is not just in this country that the living wage movement is thriving. Although, sadly, the Democratic party suffered badly in the US mid-term elections this week, propositions for a big rise in the minimum wage were carried by voters in four traditionally Republican-voting states, meaning that a total of 14 states have this year adopted large rises in the minimum wage.

The low pay crisis, which this debate will shed new light on, means that the gap between the wealthiest and the working poor in our society is getting larger. That gap becomes a chasm when we consider what it means for child poverty. In my constituency, some 38% of children grow up in households that fall below the minimum acceptable income standards. I think of the mums who have to budget harder than any Chief Secretary to the Treasury ever will to buy new shoes for their children to wear to school. I think of the workers on completely unregulated zero-hours contracts, worrying about when they will be able to pay that heating bill which is still outstanding. I think of the mothers not able to get the child care that would mean taking a job that would leave them genuinely better off.

That picture of what poverty means for 5.3 million people in this country who are paid less than a living wage—the figure has risen by 150,000 in the past year alone—should spur all of us in this House to act. British workers are twice as likely as those in Switzerland and Belgium to earn below the low pay threshold. Wealth inequality in Britain has risen four times faster in the seven years after the financial crash compared with the seven years before it.

Low pay is not just crippling for social mobility or living standards; it is also terrible for our public finances. Some £21 billion was spent on tax credits to help 3 million working families with children in 2012-13, and the cost of in-work housing benefit claims doubled in real terms in the four years to this April. A low-pay economy is a symptom of a low-productivity, low-skilled economy. It is the young, female workers, those in lower skilled jobs, and part-time and hospitality workers who suffer most with that kind of economy, and that must change.

Across the country there are record levels of anxiety over poverty pay. According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, one in three people this year has said that low pay is the biggest issue affecting the country. Fewer than one in five voters expect to benefit from any increase in economic growth this year. As we know, the link between productivity and wage growth was broken some time ago and needs to be restored if we are to have a sustained rise in living standards over the next decade.

Sadly, it is no longer the case that the main route out of poverty is a job. Many people across the country juggle several part-time jobs but are still poor. Two-thirds of children in poverty are in households where someone is in work. Hourly pay is now a bigger predictor of the chance of being poor than hours worked. The Government must focus on taking a stronger approach to improving social mobility through our education and skills systems across these islands, taking action on the quality and security of the jobs created in the economy, but also being far more proactive in boosting pay rates through forward guidance on the minimum wage—as adopted by the Low Pay Commission—and expanding the coverage of the living wage to as many people as we can. We also need a combination of action through policies to boost pay, but with the support of the tax and social security system. Although rising pay cuts reliance on state top-ups of income and brings in more tax revenue, the right approach for working families on low incomes is rising pay supported by a strong tax credit system.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

I am listening intently to the hon. Gentleman. Does he agree that no one on either Front Bench has been confident or assertive enough in spelling out what policies they can adopt to improve wages for low earners? Would he like more clarity from those on the Front Benches about what they will do with tax credits if people’s incomes rise?

[Mr Bain]

The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting and important point. Before his intervention I was saying that we should consider the impact of such measures on a lone parent in work. If she were to take a low-paid job—perhaps just above the minimum wage—the tax credit system effectively gives her an average hourly rate of £13 to £14. If wages paid not just by public sector employers but by the private sector increase, the tax credit system will still have an important role in topping up people’s income, but reliance on the state will be somewhat less. That will relieve pressure on the taxpayer and lead to a more affordable social security system in the decades to come.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford), and may I join other Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) on securing this debate? Earlier today I was at a meeting of social enterprises in Birmingham, where people were also singing his praises, so he is having a very good day indeed.

This is an important—the living wage is important to my constituents in Bedford and Kempston—and timely debate because the wages of unskilled people in this country have been affected by the globalisation of our economy and have failed to keep pace with average earnings and, in many instances, with prices. The living wage is one of the useful tools that is now available to provide Governments and policy makers with insights into tackling that long-term trend.

Working tax credits and other elements of the general taxation system were introduced with the best of intentions to tackle the disparity in wages, but they have created unintended consequences of their own that need to be addressed. We now have a massive form of corporate welfare that provides disincentives to employers to increase wages. In some circumstances, it also creates disincentives for people to progress in their careers because what they gain in income can be lost through a reduction in benefits. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan mentioned the complete lack of ambition on both sides of the House to tackle this pervasive issue. We are struggling to gee ourselves up to find policies that will attract people’s attention as well as being economically sound.

I fear that we shall hear the usual waffle from those on the two Front Benches today. I usually prefer the waffle from my own Front Bench, and the Minister for Skills and Equalities, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) is not known to be the most waffly of Ministers when it comes to speaking the truth. However, there is a tendency for policy makers to talk about the good stuff and not to look at the hard consequences of their actions. So I shall put some questions to my hon. Friend and to the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) in the hope that they will address them when they sum up. I hope that they can be honest about their policies in this area in the run-up to the election.

If we increase wages, it is highly likely that unemployment will increase as a result. If that were to happen, what amount of unemployment would those on the Front Benches be prepared to accept as they pursued a policy of increasing the wages of unskilled workers? The hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) talked earlier about how people look at the amount of money they have in their pocket at the end of each month. That comprises income, minus the bit that is taken out in taxes, plus the bit that is added on for tax credits. I have heard a number of hon. Members today trying to spend the same pound twice. They have claimed that the living wage would give people an increase in real wages while also helping to reduce the deficit because of the decrease in tax credits that would be required. Will my hon. Friend the Minister and the right hon. Member for East Ham make it clear what their mathematics are in this regard? How much would they be prepared to give in the form of an increased push on pay, and how much would they expect to recoup from that in the form of reduced benefits?

One of the most powerful ways of enhancing the living wage is to get local authorities to procure on the basis of contractors paying it. They need to be honest in their procurement to ensure that the employees providing the services they are contracting for can be paid the living wage. In this period of limited public expenditure, however, increasing the cost of providing such services while having the same budget will result in fewer services being provided. I again ask those on the two Front Benches what their honest policy would be on pushing local authorities to pay the living wage for the procurement of services. Would they be prepared to accept either an increase in expenditure or a cutting back of services?

We all want to provide employers with incentives to pay the living wage. As my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington said, this wonderful campaign was started by Citizens UK, a fantastic organisation. The greatest difficulty is that, although we can roll out this policy in the public sector, it will need to bite in the private sector as well, and we have to be honest and admit that the fiscal tools that we have to incentivise private companies are quite limited. Labour party policy seems to involve a one-year hit that would bring forward reductions in employers’ national insurance contributions enabling them to pay the living wage in that year. Perhaps that would work, and perhaps not, but we do not have many tools. Again, I would be grateful if those on the two Front Benches could tell me what tools they are considering as they try to move more people on to the living wage. How will they persuade employers that that is a good thing to do?

National Minimum Wage

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

Of course, it is post-tax income that matters to families. Having raised the threshold to £10,500, we are proposing to raise it to £12,500, meaning that no one working full time on the national minimum wage would pay any income tax at all. That is the sort of action we can get only if we have the grit to deal with public spending and leave more money in people’s pockets, thereby supporting the low-paid.

True supporters of the minimum wage also know that it is a partnership with business.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend has rightly talked about post-tax income, but for people on low incomes, what matters is post-tax and post-benefit take-home disposable income. The shadow Secretary of State did not say what his policies would be on tax credits. Does he agree that that is an important part of the debate about how we improve living standards?

[Matthew Hancock]

The shadow Secretary of State could not even explain his own tax policy when he was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell. On the other hand, we are clear about ours—[Interruption.]—and I am delighted every time the Opposition complain about it. They should put it on their leaflets. We will increase the threshold to £12,500 so that anybody on the minimum wage doing 30 hours a week will not pay a penny in income tax.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

In the spring, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition visited a remarkable woman, Rachel, on the Castle Vale estate in my constituency. She is a proud, working-class woman trying to bring up her child. She lost her job with the council as a consequence of the huge cuts that the Government are imposing on our city. She found a new job but she was on the minimum wage. She broke down in tears when she explained how difficult life is for her trying to bring up her kid with dignity and to pay her bills. She is a salt-of-the-earth working-class woman who works hard to get on. Sadly, she is typical of 30,000 people in Birmingham on the minimum wage.

I remember sitting down at the food bank run by the Baptist church on Erdington high street with three of the working poor. Two of them said exactly the same as Rachel, explaining in graphic detail what it was like to count every penny and to have their kids come home from school asking whether they could have something, only to be given an excuse for why it was not possible. One of them said—I will never forget her words—“Jack, I exist. For me this is no life.”

Before I came to this place, I was proud to serve the Transport and General Workers Union and then Unite. In the world of work, work forces showed me wage slips of £1.50, £2 and £2.50 an hour. A linen supply company in west London was supplying the swankiest hotels and restaurants and charging an arm and a leg for its services, but paying its workers £2 an hour. We unashamedly sought to organise an upward drive in pay and to end working poverty, and I remember the Conservative party’s bitter resistance to any serious steps to tackle low pay, particularly the notion that somehow the minimum wage would fundamentally undermine economic success in our country.

The national minimum wage is a landmark achievement and Labour’s legacy, but it is not good enough. The working poor are ambitious, and so are we. First, we want a much higher minimum wage and, secondly, its vigorous enforcement. When I was deputy general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, I chaired a coalition, which had all-party support across the House, that took the Gangmasters (Licensing) Bill into law. It was a remarkable coalition from plough to plate—from the National Farmers Union to the supermarkets. Even then, after the introduction of the minimum wage, when the Gangmasters Licensing Authority was up and running—it was a highly effective organisation—a company employing 1,500 strawberry pickers paid them, after deductions and charges, £20 or £25 a week for a 60 or 70-hour week. That is why vigorous enforcement of a higher minimum wage is crucial.

On the living wage, we are more ambitious than just wanting a minimum wage. We need a minimum wage for underpinning, but we are more ambitious, which is why we have championed the living wage. I am proud that I was a founder member of the drive for the living wage in London. I ran the union’s organising department. We had 100 organisers, 10 of whom were cleaners. With the East London Communities Organisation and London Citizens, we successfully mounted that campaign, which included 4,000 cleaners in Canary Wharf and the City of London. It was obscene to sit down with good men and women and to hear their stories about how they cleaned the toilets and boardrooms of bankers who were sometimes earning millions when they were on the national minimum wage. We won a living wage for them.

I am also proud that I led the first strike in the history of the House of Commons when we organised the cleaners here to achieve the living wage. To this day, I have their manifesto in my office. Good men and women were being paid a shameful wage in this mother of Parliaments.

[Richard Fuller]

It is a pleasure, Mr Deputy Speaker, to listen to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey). I have never led a strike—at least not since school. Does he agree that one concern is that those on both Front Benches are too timid about raising wages and that they do not have the passion he had when he led his trade union to do more? The issue is not fiddling about with the figure of £8 or £8.50, or whether we hit it naturally, but the courage that those on both Front Benches should have to address the real problem of people throughout the country working for low wages.

[Jack Dromey]

The hon. Gentleman speaks in good faith. All that I will say is that timidity is the preserve of his party’s Front Bench, whereas passion and determination characterise our side of the House.

As the Member of Parliament for Birmingham, Erdington, I am proud to say that Birmingham has been taking a lead in driving the living wage, first for those directly employed by the council, then for those working in schools, and now—it is the first time that any council in Britain has done this—for those employed in all future care contracts. Birmingham is working with a range of good employers, who are coming together and saying “We believe that the success of our city can be best achieved if workers are paid properly and treated fairly.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

Three important pieces of news frame our debate on the minimum wage today. First, we heard the good news about the continuing fall in unemployment. Our politics, like those of most hon. Members, are motivated by wanting to see people in work, and any fall in unemployment is therefore extremely welcome. However, we also heard that the squeeze on incomes is continuing. Alongside that, we saw the data released by the End Child Poverty campaign, which mapped child poverty figures in every constituency in Britain. The figure for my central London constituency of Westminster North—of all places—confirms that 43% of all children there are now living in poverty.

Those three pieces of news are all connected. They show us what happens when people’s housing, energy and travel costs, along with all their other costs, go up but their incomes do not. Pay has been squeezed for years at every level in this country, except the boardroom. Only last week we also heard that FTSE chief executives enjoyed a 21% increase in their incomes over the past year, at the same time as the average increase in all pay and bonuses was a mere 0.7%. I do not begrudge those of great skill and entrepreneurial talent a good reward for their labours—I really do not. However, I do not see how it is possible to justify a 21% increase at the top end of the earnings scale when in my borough we had to fight to get recognition for carers—people carrying out the most intimate and personal care and support—of elderly and disabled people. These carers were not even guaranteed the minimum wage for their labours because, unfortunately, their travel time between care appointments was not counted in their earnings and therefore they were not able to enjoy the basic statutory protection for low wages. That is truly shocking.

The big story of events in the past few years is the shift to working poverty, which is when a job simply does not pay enough to lift someone over the poverty line. Some 6.7 million people who are in poverty, or half of all those in poverty, live in a family where at least one person is working. Scandalously, that figure rose by half a million in the past year. The proportion of jobs that are low paid also rose and although it is popularly supposed that that burden falls on the young—and they have had a particularly hard time in recent years—60% of all low-paid people are over 30. This is not just a phenomenon affecting the young.

[Richard Fuller]

Many of the employees on those low incomes are obtaining tax credits, which increases the amount of money they have at their disposal, with the companies therefore benefiting from the subsidy those tax credits provide. What is Labour’s policy on tax credits?

[Ms Buck]

I will talk about tax credits in a moment, because they are extremely important, but, as we have heard from Labour Members, there is no excuse for tax credits being a substitute for employers paying a decent wage.

The number of people paid below the living wage rose in the past year from 4.6 million to 5 million, so we have seen that problem getting worse. I want to talk a little about London, because this vastly successful city, which includes a massive concentration of wealth and some of the best paid people in the country, has a scandalous problem with low pay, and it has been getting worse. Almost one in five jobs in London are low paid and the number of low-paid jobs—those below the London living wage—increased by 45,000 last year to 600,000. The number of low-paid people in London has increased from a total of 420,000 just before the global economic crisis. In 2013, almost one in five London jobs were low paid. That figure has risen from 12% in 2009, so we have a worsening problem of low pay in London.

That problem is not spread equally across people or across all sectors. We know there is a particular problem in the retail and wholesale sector and that one in five low-paid jobs are in the hospitality sector—in hotels and restaurants. Together those two sectors account for nearly half of all low-paid jobs in London—again, that proportion has risen since 2010. We know that low pay particularly affects those working part-time, particularly women. The number of women working part-time on low pay in London has increased by 67,000 since 2009-10. Women are particularly at risk of being trapped in low pay.

Worryingly, we know that there is a particular crisis of low pay affecting black and minority ethnic communities. The Bangladeshi and Pakistani communities are at particular risk of being low paid, and that is also true of black African workers in the capital. We also know that low pay has spread from inner London, which has historically had some of the worst concentrations of poverty, out into the suburbs. They have seen the fastest increase in low pay, with the proportion of low-paid jobs being highest in boroughs such as Harrow and Bexley. They were traditionally regarded as among the more affluent communities in London, so the whole pattern is changing and, unfortunately, in the past few years it has not been changing in a good way.

What does all this actually mean? It means three things, one of which is that people are worse off. We know that, on average, working people are worse off by £1,600 a year. Paul Gregg, of Bath university’s institute for policy research, said in a report that the wages of Britain’s working people are almost 20% lower than they would have been had trend wage continued at its level before the global economic crisis hit us.

[Ms Buck]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. We know that the £1,600 fall in income in cash terms and the fact that wages are 20% lower than they would have been if wage growth had been consistent with its level before the global economic crash—before 2008-09 and beyond–—means several things for the wider economy. Obviously, low-paid people invest their money in the local economy; they spend it, and that has a beneficial effect on the shops, services and communities where they live. It also means that some of those people who would have been paying tax are no longer doing so, which has a beneficial effect for low-paid people coming out of tax but means that total tax revenues are undershooting dramatically, as the Office for Budget Responsibility has confirmed. Indeed, the problem of low pay and tax revenues is a contributing factor to not being able to reduce the deficit, which of course the Conservative party told us would be completed by the next financial year. That has been a complete public policy failure, with a reduction of only a third compared with a target of almost total elimination.

Other issues arise from low pay. It damages work incentives, and we hear a great deal from the Conservative party about those. It is as if it were the party that discovered the idea of work incentives and making work pay. In fact, we all want to see work pay and for that to be an incentive for people going into work. Let us accept that that is universally shared. The trouble is that the worsening scandal of low pay, including in cities such as London, means that work simply does not necessarily guarantee a route out of poverty and it traps people on benefits. That is partly because wages have fallen, as we have heard, but also because they have fallen, particularly in places such as London, relative to soaring housing costs and rising rents. The rise in rents in London means that many households simply cannot work enough hours at the kind of pay that is being offered to get free of benefit tapers. That is particularly true for lone parents and couples with children.

Let me return to the question I was asked by the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) about tax credits. It is very important to put on the record just how crucial they are, because whatever one does about the tax threshold and taking people out of tax completely, it simply will not be enough to make sure that people with children are earning enough to make ends meet. The tax credit policy is not a substitute for tax thresholds; it is an essential complement to them, particularly for parents.

[Richard Fuller]

The hon. Lady rightly says that tax credits are a necessary policy addition to tax thresholds We are clear what the Government’s policy is on tax credits, but can she tell us what Labour’s policy is on them for the next five years?

[Ms Buck]

We heard from the Chancellor at the Tory party conference about what he wanted to do in that area. We are yet to have any specific proposals brought to this House and we will consider them when they are put in front of us. When we were asked to vote in favour of a freeze on tax credits—[Interruption.]

[Ms Buck]

When we were asked to consider what the Government’s freeze on tax credits was going to do in the earlier part of this year, we drew attention to exactly that fact and opposed the Government on that particular freeze for this year because we knew it would hit working people. We hear all the rhetoric from the Conservatives about work incentives, but we do not hear what impact that has on low-income working people.

[Richard Fuller]

I am trying to try to find some common ground. Does the hon. Lady agree that when we are talking about what to do with incomes for the low-paid, it is important that we do not try to sell them this idea that an increase in their wage will necessarily lead to an increase in their full income unless we are clear about what the policy will be on tax credits?

[Ms Buck]

I think I understand the point. We will consider, and make a decision on, those proposals that are put in front of us. They will not necessarily be the proposals that have been put in front of us by a Conservative party conference. It is extremely important to look at tax credits in the round as well as at other changes to the tax system to ensure that we are helping not just those on low incomes through tax thresholds but those who have children so that they have a chance of a decent standard of living too.

Another related point is that low pay has caught people in in-work benefits and added to the benefit bill. The low-wage economy has led to an enormous increase not only in the number of working people claiming in-work benefits such as housing benefit, but in the total expenditure. For example, we have seen a £4 billion increase in housing benefit— that is despite the fact that the Government have made cuts to the total level of housing benefit—as more people are forced into making claims to make ends meet. Indeed, the number of working households needing housing benefit has already increased by 22% and is expected to double over the coming years.

To ensure that we have a sustained recovery and that we tackle the cost of living crisis, help people on low pay and cut the benefits bill, we need to do something about low pay. That is why I so warmly welcome what my hon. Friends on the Front Bench have said about tackling the minimum wage, delivering the “make work pay” contracts, and helping and supporting employers to pay the London living wage, which was set at £8.80 in 2013-14. That will ensure that Londoners can enjoy the full fruits of economic growth as it now belatedly returns.

Where possible—we know that this will not apply to every single sector of the economy—employers should be able to pass on the benefits of the recovery to employees, and in so doing ensure that the additional costs of in-work benefits are offset, so that we can make a contribution to the Treasury. We know that the minimum wage is only one component in a package that will do something to end the cost of living crisis. I welcome the proposals that will ensure rent stability for London renters who have been dealing with this enormous burden of increased housing costs, and the measures to tackle energy costs that have so burdened low-income households over the past few years. The minimum wage may be only one component of the package, but it is a vital one. I very much welcome today’s motion and look forward to voting for it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Brown]

Absolutely. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) said earlier, low-paid workers do not salt the money away but go out and spend it, and that is what we need. I honestly believe that that is where the coalition Government, to a certain extent, have failed. They have taken money away from some of the poorest communities and households, and there is no doubt that if we had left money in their hands, it would have been spent.

[Richard Fuller]

rose—

[Mr Brown]

Mr Deputy Speaker is looking at me and I want to draw to a conclusion.

I want to mention “make work pay” contracts. In November last year, the Leader of the Opposition announced

“that a future Labour government would encourage employers to pay the living wage through new ‘Make Work Pay’ contracts.

Firms which sign up to become Living Wage employers in the first year of the next Parliament will benefit from a 12-month tax rebate of up to £1,000—and an average of £445—for every low paid worker who gets a pay rise.

This measure will be entirely funded from the increased tax and National Insurance revenue received by the Treasury when employees receive higher wages. Additional savings in lower tax credits and benefit payments, as well as increased tax revenues in future years, will cut social security bills and help pay down the deficit”—

as we all want to do. That, without a shadow of a doubt, is a commitment that an incoming Government would make the desperate moves that have to be made to reduce the deficit.

[Richard Fuller]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Brown]

I am going to finish now.

I am proud that when I came into this House I was one of a team of people who took forward the National Minimum Wage Bill. I have always said that even if I do nothing else in life, I can say that I played that part in what that Labour Government did. With no doubt whatsoever, I will be supporting our motion. I would like to think that one or two Government Members who have spoken will support us too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whiteford]

Thank you for that clarification, Mr Deputy Speaker. The first I heard of those outrageous slurs on the hon. Member for Harlow was today, but I hope that the record has been put straight and that he will continue to put it straight. I would feel much happier, however, if Government Members would dissociate themselves more firmly from what Lord Freud has said.

[Richard Fuller]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is my first point of order so please give me some forbearance. At what point is it orderly to refer to comments that have not been made in this House and at what point is it not orderly to do so? Comments have been made about one Minister in one location, and other comments have been made about a Member of Parliament in another location. Which is orderly and which is disorderly to refer to here?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

First, we are not going to worry about the Chair’s decision. My decision—I will be quite clear—is that a peer from another place has been mentioned, but I do not want to get into a debate about something that has been over the airwaves relating to two Members. That issue has been clarified in this Chamber and by another Member. I do not want the debate to centre on that. This is a debate, as we know, about the minimum wage and support for people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

The motion recognises that there is a series of extremely important issues, but it fails on at least three fronts: in my view, it is too timid in its prescription; it lacks honesty in addressing the issue of how to meet competing ambitions; and, above all, the public have no confidence whatever in the ability of the shadow Treasury team and the leader of the party who tabled it to manage the country’s economy.

These issues are important because people want a pay rise. They want a pay rise because for many years now they have suffered from the consequences of the previous Labour Government’s debt-fuelled policies, which came crashing down in the economic collapse of 2007. That was seven long years ago, and we are still suffering the consequences of their failures. People understand that it takes time for the economy to be repaired. They are pleased to see that the Government have a long-term economic plan and are making progress in addressing the fundamental weaknesses of the economy. They understand that a stronger economy means stronger businesses, that stronger businesses mean more jobs and that an increase in employment will result in higher wages. However, they are impatient to feel that in their own pockets.

There is a lack of ambition in the proposals before us. There are several reasons why the motion and policy prescriptions from both sides of the House are too limited to meet the challenges that the economy faces. The first reason is that we are living through an era of massive corporate welfare. Vast sums of taxpayers’ money are funnelled into our private sector—or so-called private sector—companies year in, year out. One of the most substantial amounts of corporate welfare each year is paid out in the form of tax credits. I am not at all saying that we should scrap tax credits, but I think we need to be clear about how much taxpayers’ money can be paid to corporations to subsidise wages or provide other subsidies for what are otherwise private sector, free market activities.

The second reason is the conundrum that those of us in free economies do not value valuable work. We have heard comments from Members on both sides of the House about this, but if we asked the public to rate how important they think certain jobs are and what should be paid for such jobs, we would end up with substantially different outcomes from those that now exist. For a start, every Member of the House would be paid a whole lot less and bankers would not gain the millions of pounds that they achieve, but our nurses would earn more and, most importantly, our care workers would earn substantially more. In free economies, there is a conundrum: how do we get to a point somewhere between what the market delivers and the remuneration that people expect to be given for the work put in? There is no question but that the moves under the previous Labour Government in both introducing the national minimum wage and providing working tax credits—I might have concerns about the latter going too far—were steps in the right direction of trying to find solutions to that problem, which still persists.

The third major reason why today’s prescriptions are too timid is that there is a substantial underlying issue of demand in western economies. If we look at the risks faced by this country—it is a tremendous accomplishment that the UK economy is growing so strongly, despite the international headwinds—we still have to conclude that one of the most substantial risks is the insufficient demand in the real economy. There is quite a lot of demand in the financial products area, but there is not enough demand in the real economy. Providing a boost to real wages would address the issue of the absence of demand perhaps even more effectively than quantitative easing has managed to do over the past five years.

As I have said, the motion fails because it lacks honesty in tackling the existence of competing ambitions. Let me give an example in relation to the first issue. One sector with low pay is care, but a route out of that is to have transparency in commissioning. This week, I was very pleased to meet Citizens UK, which has been at the forefront of efforts on the living wage. It will have a manifesto for each of us as Members of Parliament or candidates at the next election to consider. It has looked at commissioning, and wants transparency in commissioning to show that care workers’ pay can be at or above the minimum wage or at or above the living wage. It says that that can be accomplished by providing a floor on commission pricing. If we are to be honest, we have to address the consequence of that. In an era of limited public expenditure, when it is necessary to bring the deficit down, what will we do when the average cost of care goes up? Will we expand the amount of care that is provided and expand the budget for it or will we reduce the amount of care to keep the expenditure the same? The Government and the Opposition need to be honest about what their proposals are on that.

The second issue, which I ask Opposition Members to address, is that in a number of the scenarios for increasing pay from the minimum wage to the living wage, the increase is offset nearly 100% by reductions in benefits. What are the proposals of the Opposition and the Government on that? They say to the public, “We will increase your pay and that will be a good thing,” but when tax and national insurance are taken away and the working tax credits, child tax credits, housing benefit and council tax benefit are added, are people actually going to be better off? If it is not possible for parties to demonstrate that there will be an increase in pay at that point, we are in danger of misleading people by saying that we are doing something that will make them better off in their pockets. That is compounded when Opposition Members say that they can achieve an increase in wages at the same time as reducing the deficit. The same pound cannot be spent in two different places. In her closing remarks, perhaps the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions might provide some light—it might be too early to be too explicit—on how she sees that conflict playing out.

The third issue is directed more at my own party. I believe strongly that we need a strategy for wages. However, I understand that that will have consequences for employment. The Government have done a remarkable job of increasing employment during the country’s worst recession since the war. We now need to look at how we will balance that policy over the next few years with increasing wages.

May I make three suggestions? First, we should continue the work that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is doing to look at the national minimum wage. Secondly, we should consider whether there should be a cross-party agreement to peg the minimum wage to a percentage of average wages. That could become a norm within the Low Pay Commission’s role and responsibilities. Thirdly, we should promote the living wage through greater transparency requirements in all local government contracts, so that local authorities cannot parade the fact that they are doing the right thing by paying their own employees the living wage unless it is transparent that people in the private sector companies and charities that are commissioned to provide their services are being paid the living wage as well.

Infant Class Sizes

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Tristram Hunt]

We all look forward to the Government achieving their target on migration—something, I think, that will be very far away.

Why have the Government allowed class sizes to increase and to damage the education of children in English schools? Because they have spent the money that should be used to keep class sizes down on their discredited free schools programme—the programme that has brought us the Al-Madinah free school, the scandal of the Kings science academy and terrible results at IES Breckland.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

Hundreds of parents in my constituency went through picket lines organised by radical teachers against the free school in Bedford. They wanted to give their children a better education. Were they wrong to aspire to a better education for their children? Is Labour policy against what they want?

[Tristram Hunt]

Parents in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency rightly want the best for their children. I cannot help thinking that they will not necessarily achieve that given that the number of children in primary class sizes of more than 30 has increased by 134% in his constituency. I cannot imagine that that will increase the attainment and the results that his constituents are looking for.

On 10 May, The Observer reported that the previous Secretary of State had raided £400 million from the basic need fund used to keep class sizes down to pay for the free schools programme. The paper reported that

“Gove had secretly taken the money from the Basic Need fund…in the face of stiff opposition from the Lib Dem schools minister David Laws.”—

clearly not that stiff an opposition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nicky Morgan]

The hon. Lady and I had a great sparring relationship when I was in my previous role and she often tried to use the word “complacent”. She will know that I am never complacent about the concerns raised by MPs across the House. This debate is about airing the issues, but parents might not be quite so concerned if the shadow Secretary of State were honest and open with the figures that he is bringing to the House today.

[Richard Fuller]

The Secretary of State has faced a number of confusing interventions from Opposition Members, one of which repeated something that was said in The Guardian today, which was that she was about to announce a policy of compulsory setting. Will she take this opportunity to say whether she is going to do that?

[Nicky Morgan]

Let me confirm for the benefit of the House that there is absolutely no truth in those rumours. There are some people outside this House who have a rather unhealthy interest in speculating about what I am or am not about to announce. They would be better served if they spent less time on Twitter and talking to journalists, and more time reflecting on the importance of the policies and reforms that have already been implemented by this Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nicky Morgan]

I will touch on that point in a moment, but I dispute that evidence. I note, however, that the hon. Gentleman did not dispute what I was saying about classes of 70 and more. It was just a snapshot. He thinks it perfectly acceptable to upset teachers like this. We can have a legitimate debate about school places, we can disagree about how we got into this situation and what we are doing to sort it out, but there is no place for scaremongering on such an emotive and important issue.

We have learned today that the shadow Secretary of State is opposed to free schools, although I am not sure because it is hard to keep up. It is Wednesday. It could be anti-free school day on the Opposition Front Bench, but he had better ensure that the 21 Labour MPs and his three shadow Cabinet colleagues who have publicly backed free schools in their constituencies get the memo.

[Richard Fuller]

Is it not depressing that the Opposition motion is premised on division? It divides teachers in free schools from teachers in other schools, parents from parents and children from children. Would my right hon. Friend not like to see a more positive education policy that can inspire the next generation, not set one against the other?

[Nicky Morgan]

In order to have a positive vision for education, one needs a plan for education, and that is what the Government have in our drive for high academic standards, high-quality teachers and the best schools possible. All that is absent in Labour’s education plan.

The shadow Secretary of State is fond of claiming that free schools divert money from areas of basic need, but it will come as no surprise to right hon. and hon. Members to learn that he is wrong again. Seven in 10 mainstream free schools have been opened in areas of basic need. That figure is higher still for the free schools opening this month, and higher again for those approved in the most recent application round. Free schools are also helping to provide good school places in some of the most challenging parts of the country. Half of free schools have been established in the 30% most deprived communities and they have to abide by the same admissions code as all state-funded schools. In total, open and planned free schools will provide 175,000 new places, with the vast majority in areas facing a shortage or areas of deprivation. This is an amazing story of success, but it is not just our story. None of it would have happened without the hard work and dedication of the parent and teacher groups that made it possible.

However, free schools are just part of the story—a vital part and one that is helping to raise standards in all schools, through the new ideas and approaches they bring and the support they provide to other schools and institutions, but only one part of our plan for education, which is delivering real results. What is the shadow Secretary of State’s plan? What would he do? What would a Labour Government offer to young people in education today? It is no good looking to him, because his view changes all the time. As we have heard, he was for free schools before he was against them, and against AS-levels before he was for them. Once he makes up his mind, he is full of indecision.

Let us look not at what the Labour party says, but instead at what it does. An all-out pursuit of mediocrity; subjects dumbed down; exam grades inflated; many young people leaving school barely able to read and write properly, with the most disadvantaged young people suffering most; and, as we know, slashing the number of school places by 200,000 at the same time as the number of people demanding a school place was rising—that is the Labour party’s record. That is what Labour Members offer, because they have not learned their lesson. They never do, which is why today the shadow Secretary of State has set his face against everything that has been achieved in the past few years.

The shadow Secretary of State has set himself against the changes that have given more young people the opportunity to go to a good or outstanding school than ever before, against the reforms that have given every child the chance to get a good grounding in the core academic subjects, and against the changes we have made to get children off the exam treadmill and to ensure they spend more time in education and less time in exams. Above all, he has set himself against the progress that has been made, not by me or my predecessor, but by thousands of the hard-working and dedicated teachers who have quietly got on with the job and put the Government’s plan for education into action.

We know what the shadow Secretary of State is against; we just do not know what he is for. However, we do know that, like Lord Cardigan before him, he has been sent out on this hopeless mission by a weak and confused leader who, devoid of any plan of his own, can do nothing more than send his troops forward to inevitable defeat. Let me make it clear again. We would indeed be facing a crisis of class sizes in this country today—we would indeed be seeing children struggling in classes that are too big to work—if it were not for this Government’s plan to clear up the mess the last Labour Government left behind.

The shadow Secretary of State spoke for 24 minutes, but he did not mutter the one word that parents and children need to hear from the Labour party on this subject perhaps more than any other: sorry. He is fortunate that, as so often, we have picked up the pieces, so that young people do not have to suffer for his Government’s mistakes. Let us resolve today never to allow the future of our children to be placed in Labour’s hands ever again. I urge the House to reject the motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Toby Perkins]

That is interesting, as not long ago we heard the Secretary of State talking about class sizes of 70 happening now. I do not recognise that as something that the Labour party wants to see, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) has secured this debate because he wants to make it absolutely clear that the Labour party’s commitment back in 1997 to rescue our schools from the catastrophic and mediaeval state they were in after 18 years of Tory government burns in his heart. He wants a reduction in class sizes and to get away from the huge increases we have seen under this Government.

On the subject of the vision for education held by the previous Education Secretary before his dismissal—I am sure that my two colleagues on the Front Bench are not the only people sitting on a Front Bench at the moment who were pleased to see him disappear—this Government’s approach has led, in my experience, to a demoralised teaching work force, a betrayal of the Government’s rhetoric when they came to office of a commitment to the early years, and a fragmented landscape that has seen enfeebled local authority provision, schools driven unwillingly into becoming academies and the appalling realisation that although money has flowed towards free schools, often in areas that had sufficient demand, there has been a 200% increase in the number of infant pupils taught in classes sized over 30.

Any MP who has taken the time to visit their local schools cannot fail to be moved by the pressure put on our schools by this out-of-touch Government, but the seeds of that educational approach should have been revealed to anyone who took the time to read the Conservative party manifesto, which was referred to a few minutes ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central. It stated:

“A Conservative government will give many more children access to the kind of education that is currently only available to the well-off: safe classrooms, talented…teachers, access to the best curriculum…and smaller schools with smaller class sizes with teachers who know the children’s names.”

I do not know about other MPs, but as someone who has been a councillor, a school governor and a parent in Chesterfield over the 13 years of Labour government I find that description, as though that was what schools were like back in 2010, downright offensive. It seems to be a view of our education system based on the views of someone whose only experience of schools was what they had read in the Daily Mail. But that was how the Tory party represented what education looked like back in 2010. Sadly, it is consistent with how out of touch the Government have been on education and a raft of other issues throughout their time in government.

It is not the fault of Ministers in this Government that the education team was entirely privately educated and that does not prevent them individually from being perfectly good Ministers, but when the basis of their education policy is founded on such a narrow and misguided view of what schoolchildren in my constituency experience, I cannot help but think that a wider perspective across the team would help their approach to be slightly more grounded in reality.

Let me return specifically to class sizes. The old “hug a hoodie” David Cameron used to get it. Back in 2008, when he was still a modern Conservative, he told the Yorkshire Post that

“the more we can get class sizes down the better”.

In the 2010 manifesto, he promised

“small schools with smaller class sizes”

That incarnation of David Cameron—oh, how long ago it seems—understood that every extra pupil adds to a teacher’s work load, with extra marking and planning, and means less time to be spent on pupils. If we want primary education to be about more than just presenting something to pupils, class size is important. Smaller classes mean more attention per pupil and more opportunity for children to develop their analytical thinking skills.

That is why the last Labour Government made class sizes such a priority and made such great strides on this issue. In 1997, as one of our five key pledges ahead of the election, Labour promised to cut class sizes to 30 or under for five, six and seven-year-olds by September 2002. Remarkably, the Labour Government actually achieved that a year early; by 2001 it was clear that it would be met. I cannot imagine that many of the promises made by the current Government will be achieved a year early—they will certainly not be achieving what they promised on the deficit. Unfortunately, those achievements have been thrown away by this Tory-led Government, particularly by two specific policy mistakes they have made.

Whereas Labour outlawed class sizes going beyond 30 for children aged four to seven, so that if a class did go above 30 in one year it had to be brought back down the following year, this Tory-led Government relaxed those rules so that class sizes can be above 30 for several years—we heard the Secretary of State proudly boasting about that today. Worse, the Government’s unfettered and ideological free school programme has diverted funding away from areas that need school places most. Instead, we have heard of the disgraceful situation where free schools have been set up in areas with an oversupply of infants schools and are sat there half empty.

Some people who were planning to set up a free school in Chesterfield came to see me at one of my surgeries. I said to these two parents, “So why do you want to set up a free school?” They said, “We don’t think we can get our kids into Brookfield. We want our kids to go there.” So this entire school was being set up because they could not get their children into one school, even though there were other schools they could get into. When I suggested that they could join the governing body of the school in their catchment area and see whether they could improve that, I was told, “Well, it is a bit of a risk.” So I said, “You are setting up a school that doesn’t exist, that has no teachers, that has no building, that has no other pupils and that has no facilities. That is not ‘not a risk’, is it?” [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) is shouting “yes” and he has a free school in his constituency that is half empty. We heard the Education Secretary saying today that a new free school that was due to be set up has, in the middle of September, when most pupils—

[Richard Fuller]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Toby Perkins]

Let me just finish the point. The Education Secretary was talking about a school in Leicester that, at a time when most children all around the country are going back to school, has been told that it cannot open, and 69 children are left without a school. She says, “Well, we have to get these things right.” The Government should have looked at that when they were going through all these proposals and giving the money to set up the free school. That is the basis of this education policy.

[Richard Fuller]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because the Labour party is trying, yet again, to divide people on the issue of free schools and is pointing to Bedford as an example. Local people and local teachers have worked very hard to make sure that the free school could be part of the family of schools and, contrary to what he is saying, the Bedford free school is one of the largest free schools that have been set up from scratch, with more than 400 pupils. Their parents have decided that that school is right for their children, and I am very proud that this Government have enabled them to make that choice.

[Toby Perkins]

The hon. Gentleman talks about a divisive education system, but I have never seen a more divided education system than the one that has been set up by this Government. We have seen an incredibly divided, fragmented system. We have seen schools that do not want to be academies forced into it because they cannot afford to be anything else but academies. The Opposition made it absolutely clear that we support parents getting involved in their schools, but the ideological approach of setting up free schools in a place that already has adequate supply and at the same time seeing infant class sizes at the disgraceful level that has been discussed in this debate is an utterly divisive way to approach education policy.

National Audit Office reports demonstrate that fully two thirds of all of new places created by the free schools programme have been created outside the areas with the most need. Extraordinarily, that has left some local authorities in a position where they want to build a new school to manage a primary places crisis, only to be told that the Department for Education will allow a new school to be built only if it is a free school and only to find out that nobody wants to build a free school in that area. That approach is utterly against the best interests of our children.

Free schools were supposed to fill gaps in the market, but they are in fact doing the opposite and are stacked up in places where there is already sufficient demand. We have seen the consequence of that approach in my constituency. Across Derbyshire, the number of infant school pupils who are in classes with more than 30 children has increased by 117% since this Government came to office. A freedom of information request to the Department for Education exposed the full scale of the class-size growth scandal. How pitiful the Prime Minister’s promise to cut class sizes now looks.

In Chesterfield, schools are grappling with class sizes that were absolutely unimaginable under a Labour Government. Hollingwood primary school has one class of 36; Hasland Hall infant school a class of 39; Abercrombie primary school a class of 44; and Walton Holymoorside, just over the border in North East Derbyshire—it is the school to which my own children went—a class of 36. For anyone who remembers the huge class sizes that we had under the last Tory Government—the one that actually won a general election—those figures will come as no surprise.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Nicky Morgan]

I expect all schools to work closely with their Members of Parliament. I will talk more about this matter tomorrow when I make a statement about the Clarke report. It is not true to say that academies are not subject to oversight. They are subject to more oversight from the Department for Education and the Education Funding Agency than maintained schools.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

The Secretary of State’s predecessor was not radical enough on free schools. Will she take this opportunity to state unequivocally her support for free schools, and will she bring forward new ideas for a more rapid expansion of free schools across the country?

[Nicky Morgan]

It is always exciting to be tempted to be more radical. My commitment to free schools is absolutely undimmed. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend and Members from all parts of the House to get more free schools up and running.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Laws]

That is precisely why the Government have doubled the allocation of money for basic need, by complete contrast with the previous Government who cut the number of places in primary schools despite the boom in the birth rate.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

Thinking that it faces too many bureaucratic hurdles, the Local Government Association is looking for more powers to interfere in free schools and academies. All too often, local authorities are the bureaucratic hurdles, holding back inspired head teachers, inspirational boards of governors, and parents who want a better future for their children. Will my right hon. Friend resist these efforts by local government to take back controls?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is a man after my own heart. There are some outstanding local councils, not least, for example, in the north-east and Darlington. They do a great job in supporting head teachers to raise standards and exercise a greater degree of autonomy. Sadly, however, there are those who want the creeping tendrils of bureaucracy once again to choke the delicate flower of freedom, and I am afraid that the Opposition Front Bench is a particularly rank unweeded garden when it comes to nurturing those tendrils.