Deregulation Bill

Debate between Toby Perkins and Kelvin Hopkins

Wednesday 14th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Toby Perkins]

That is an interesting point. It is important, of course, to get clarity for Sikhs in Northern Ireland but also for Sikhs across Britain. The Minister spoke more broadly, which is important.

It has been brought to our attention that one interpretation of section 12 of the Employment Act 1989 could have the effect of permitting an employer to use the defence of having a legitimate aim when forcing a Sikh employee to wear a safety helmet in the workplace. This could undermine the new clause’s intention in a similar way to the definition of a workplace. I would be grateful if the Minister responded to that point in his summing up. I hope that the Minister will listen to and engage with those concerns. All Members—possibly with one exception—want to see this important change delivered, so I hope we can work together on a cross-party basis to achieve it.

Just as it is important to update and clarify legislation on behalf of Sikh workers, so it is important constantly to review all regulations to ensure that there are no unnecessary burdens that undermine growth. We fear, however, that little of that will be achieved in this wide-ranging—albeit limited in its positive effect—Bill. Fundamental questions need to be answered about the kind of economy and the kind of workplaces that Britain should have now and in the future.

We sometimes hear voices on the right of the political spectrum arguing that health and safety has gone mad and too far in Britain. Labour Members, however, are proud that Britain was a safer place in which to work at the end of the last Government than it had ever been before. We were proud, too, that we delivered the first Olympics in history without a single death occurring during its construction. In the last 20 years, there has been a clear downward trend in the number of fatal injuries in the workplace. In 1993-94, 300 people were killed at work; in 2012-13, that number had fallen to 148. It is proof that strong health and safety legislation, advice and guidance make a difference. When almost 150 people a year still set out for work one morning and never return home, there cannot be any cause whatever for complacency on health and safety.

Interestingly, in corresponding on Twitter with my constituents and others about the fact that we would debate health and safety legislation today, I received a response from a constituent in Derbyshire. He said, “I bet you’re not going to mention Europe when you get into that debate, because a lot of our health and safety legislation has come from Europe and we should be out of Europe so that we can get rid of all this health and safety legislation.” When I looked at his profile on Twitter, I found out that he had recently joined UKIP—so he is in the right place, at least. It is interesting that, at a time when 150 people a year are still dying at work, we should hear voices on the right saying that we need to get out of Europe so that we can get rid of all these health and safety rights and, presumably, increase the number of people who die at work. That was quite a revealing contribution.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

rose—

[Toby Perkins]

Now we shall hear from someone who has far more responsible views on health and safety in general, although his views on Europe may be different from mine.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

It is a matter of considerable pride to me that the TUC drove forward the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 as part of a deal with the Government on pay. I think that that is one of the greatest pieces of legislation passed by a Labour Government this century—I mean last century.

[Toby Perkins]

I share my hon. Friend’s tremendous pride in the Act, and he is right to observe that very significant steps were taken in the 1970s. It should also be acknowledged that further steps were taken during the 13 years of Labour government through consultation and work with colleagues in Europe, and that Europe is a much safer workplace for it.

Back in 1993-94, 20 years ago, self-employed workers accounted for a sixth of all workplace deaths. In 2012-13, they accounted for a third of such deaths. In other words, the self-employed are twice as large a proportion of all those who die at work now as they were 20 years ago. If the Government are serious about driving down workplace deaths, reducing health and safety requirements for the self-employed seems a pretty odd way to start.

A few years ago funds for the Health and Safety Executive were cut by 35% in a single year, which has led to fewer inspections and the issuing of improvement notices. The present Government slowed the progress that we had been making on health and safety. However, we entirely reject the idea that the fact that Labour made that progress means that we favoured excessive regulation. Indeed, we are glad that the important work of the Better Regulation Commission—which was formed as part of the last Government’s commitment to deregulation, and which has played an important part in removing unnecessary burdens and ensuring that more are not unintentionally created when new regulations are introduced—has continued under the present Government.

The House of Commons Library estimates that businesses benefited to the tune of £3 billion a year as a result of the various deregulatory measures introduced by the last Government. A comparison between that scale of savings and this pygmy of a Bill sends a clear message about who was serious about backing business. However, a sensible approach to regulation is about proportionality, consistency and clarity, and I object in the strongest possible terms to the idea that making workers less safe or less well off is being done in the name of small businesses.

This Tory-led Government clearly have a view of the type of workplace that they want Britain to be. The Tory vision of the working Britain of the future is of a place in which everyone’s position and rights are insecure and enfeebled employees live in constant fear of losing their jobs, with low security, low wages and zero hours: an easy-in, easy-out workplace. The Tories think that a workplace that is engaged in a race to the bottom makes for a competitive economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Toby Perkins]

That is an important point. The exact nature of the alliance that was formed will have to be left to the history books to judge. Were the Liberal Democrats willing accomplices who wanted to support everything that the Tory Government did, or were they, as my hon. Friend put it, poodles who were simply excited by the idea of ministerial office, and who decided to join in when they did not really support what was being done?

I suspect that, as we head towards the 2015 general election, a whole array of Liberal Democrat Ministers will suddenly emerge and say, “They made me do it. I did not really want to pursue that policy. There were tough decisions to be made.” They will try to claim some little bauble: “We may have tripled tuition fees, VAT may have gone up and workers’ rights may have been taxed, but we got something out of it.” We shall see whether, when they bring their agenda to the 2015 election, they throw off the clothes that they have worn for the last five years and claim to be different. What an exciting time we have to look forward to.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I agree with everything that my hon. Friend is saying. May I suggest that if the Liberal Democrats vote with us this afternoon, they may save themselves a little bit of shame?

[Toby Perkins]

The idea that the Liberal Democrats might be able to save themselves a bit of shame is a novel concept—perhaps my hon. Friend is being a little bit too ambitious—but we shall none the less listen with great interest to what they say.

Adult Literacy and Numeracy

Debate between Toby Perkins and Kelvin Hopkins

Thursday 10th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) on securing an excellent debate about an issue on which she has fought and campaigned for some time. Her speech reflected her expertise and passion. I also congratulate the other Members who have contributed to this valuable and serious discussion of an issue that continues to be significant.

The warnings issued by the OECD in its report make it clear that Britain faces a considerable challenge in aiming to raise the literacy and numeracy levels of, in particular, the most deprived people in the country. The report is unequivocal in identifying the need for England and Northern Ireland to address social inequalities, especially among the young, as a key reason for the fact that we are falling behind in that regard. It emphasises that although we in Britain make good use of our highly skilled talent pool, there is a stronger association between higher levels of literacy and good social outcomes here than in most other countries.

Although the motion provides some guidance in regard to the aspects that we should be considering, it is somewhat limited, in that it proposes an academic solution to what is largely a social problem. I entirely support its call for literacy and numeracy programmes to be made more accessible to the people who are hardest to reach, and its call for imaginative support for illiterate adults, but, to a degree, it seeks to address the symptoms rather than the causes of the current problem.

The hon. Member for Gosport provided us with an impressive list of statistics relating to the social and economic costs of illiteracy and the extent to which it disadvantages Britain in the global race. She also suggested giving jobcentres a mandatory role in dealing with illiteracy and innumeracy. I believe that, if jobcentres are to play such a role, they will need to change their relationship with the people whom they see as customers. Many people come to see me after visiting jobcentres, and it is clear to me that the current relationship is not likely to enable them to feel positive about jobcentres’ sending them in the direction of literacy. However, the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education has said that there is a potential role for jobcentres, and I think that the idea could be considered if the culture within them were to change.

My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) made an excellent speech. His passion for Caitlin Moran was clear for all to see, and I am sure that it will gratify her. He reflected, importantly, on the changing face of our economy, and on the fact that our economic and educational needs have, in some respects, become aligned with each other. As our economic needs change, it is vital for our educational needs to change as well. He made another important point about the huge potential for business people to serve as mentors in our schools. The Labour party is considering that proposal in detail. Business people have been serving as school governors in Labour-controlled Waltham Forest, and I should like to see more of them reflecting the needs of business in our education establishments.

The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) made such a brilliant speech that I wrote down four of his observations so that I could reflect on them. He pointed out that the issue of literacy and numeracy had dogged the country for many years, and that successive Governments had wrestled with it. Like other Members, he mentioned libraries. He also referred to the important issue of immigration.

Immigration has produced numerous economic and cultural benefits, but there is no point in pretending that it has been a one-way street. It has also posed significant challenges. As the OECD report made clear, in many cases there is a higher level of illiteracy among members of specific ethnic groups who come to this country, quite apart from the fact that English might not be their first language.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) was passionate about a project in her constituency, and about the excellent work that is being done there. Indeed, throughout the debate we heard about positive projects that are taking place in individual areas. It seems to me that if those projects could be joined up, they would work better as a result.

The hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) made a plea for financial education. He too focused on the importance of libraries, as did the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley)—who, I understand, could be backed at 16/1 with Paddy Power yesterday to win the deputy speakership, but is now at 5/2. While I entirely endorse what he said about the role that libraries could play, the massive level of local authority cuts is causing them to close throughout the country. We cannot say that libraries should be doing more while at the same time ordering authorities to make the cuts that are leading to the closures.

I would make a similar point to the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), who referred to Sure Start. There have been huge cuts in Sure Start, 400 of whose centres have closed. It is estimated that a third of its funding has disappeared since the Government came to power. Although I think that the hon. Gentleman is right to ask about Sure Start’s role in relation to literacy and numeracy, I do not think that it can be taken out of context.

The hon. Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) asked when we will deal with this. When will we see this done? Will this be the Government who really make a difference? I am keen to investigate that question now.

The OECD report made it clear that Britain is above average in the achievement of level 3 and level 4 literacy in comparison with our European neighbours—ahead of Germany, the USA, France, Italy and Spain—but we have many more people than our competitors do who fail to reach level 1, which is people who are functionally illiterate. Adults at level 1 have a reading age of 11. I read today that The Guardian has a reading age of 16 and The Sun has a reading age of 11, and I share the concern of the hon. Member for Gosport that many of the one in six adults to whom she referred will be able to read The Sun but not The Guardian. That could explain a lot.

We face a significant challenge and we need to focus on the steps we are going to take to do something about this. We need to realise that social inequality is a key determinant of academic inequality.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Toby Perkins]

I am tempted to give way, as I am always very keen to hear from my hon. Friend, and his attempt to intervene reminds me that I failed to mention his contribution on the importance of numeracy, particularly in rebalancing the economy. I was surprised and encouraged to hear that he has been annoying his friends on the left. That is not something I have always accused him of, but it is always good to have things revealed in the House.

We need to look at what is actually happening. There has recently been a big increase in child poverty. The Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that 3.1 million children will be living in absolute poverty by 2013. Much of the progress that was made on child poverty between 1997 and 2010 is being eradicated and that is not going to reduce the social inequalities that this report tells us we need to address.

There have been cuts to local authorities and Sure Start centres, and further education funding has been cut by £260 million. The number of working poor is increasing. Countries at the top of the education table are countries that have a social democratic model of government. We need to learn the lessons from this report.

What would our approach be? First, we need to identify those groups in society who are most vulnerable to being illiterate or innumerate and put in place a series of guarantees to ensure they are not simply thrown into the job market and expected to sink or swim without the skills they need in numeracy and literacy. Any step that would see more children educated by unqualified teachers would be retrograde. We need to see steps to support people who are at greatest risk applying to all school leavers. Those who are not achieving the standards of literacy and numeracy that they should by the age of 16 will be given a chance to catch up with a guarantee of further study in those areas until the age of 18.

We also need to support Army leavers more. About 39% of Army recruits join with literacy and numeracy skills at level 1. The Army’s extensive apprenticeship programme has already done a fantastic job in improving the literacy and numeracy of many of those people, and one nation Labour would strongly support the Ministry of Defence as a leading Department in tackling that problem.

We also need to focus on our prisons. Some 48% of the prison population have a reading age of 11 or lower, so there needs to be a real focus on supporting people in our prison population to ensure they get the skills they need.

The answers to the problems are not purely pedagogical, however; they are very much social. When we still live in a society where people can be in work and in poverty and where the cost of child care can mean it still does not pay to be in work and where children can arrive in school at the age of five unable to speak, we should not be entirely surprised that we face this problem.

To address it, a one nation Labour Government will ensure that working parents of three and four-year-olds will get 25 hours of free child care a week, paid for by a banking levy worth £800 million a year. We will also legislate for a primary school guarantee that every school is an 8 am to 6 pm school. I agree with what has been said about making better use of our schools. We need to rescue Sure Start from the huge cuts it has had, and we need to work with experts to develop the best solution to overcome these stigmas and barriers.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Gosport on the excellent debate she has instigated and her contribution to it. She is right that this is a vital issue. A tremendous partnership approach is needed in order to improve it and to ensure we have greater opportunities for all, and to make better use of all of our people so we can start to fulfil the promise of Britain.