Schools White Paper

Wes Streeting Excerpts

Wednesday 13th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Nicky Morgan]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

As I say, we have over £500 million available in this Parliament to build capacity, including recruiting excellent sponsors and encouraging the development of strong multi-academy trusts. As ever, however, the back-of-a-fag-packet calculation that the hon. Member for Manchester Central seems so fond of, and that was put out by the Labour party press office, uses grossly inaccurate costings—in one case, for example, erroneously calculating that the average cost of academisation will be £66,000. In fact, costs per academy have fallen from over £250,000 in 2010-11 to £32,000 today. The cost per academy will continue to fall significantly in the years ahead as we move towards full academisation.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State talks about the £500 million available in this Parliament. Will she give an undertaking to publish in great detail the Department’s costings to reassure us that this is indeed a fully funded policy and that all the costs have been fully taken into account? I am afraid to say that her figures seem a bit pie in the sky.

[Nicky Morgan]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that my figures are absolutely not pie in the sky. We publish a huge amount of information and if he wants to write to me about how much it will cost to academise all the schools in his constituency, I will be happy to respond.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

This debate is actually about children and the interests of children; it is about making sure that they have opportunities to fulfil their lives. We would not be having a debate like this if local education authorities in the past had delivered opportunities to all children in a proper way—that is an absolute fact. The Labour Government under Tony Blair would have agreed with me, because they started off the academies programme and they emphasised the importance of “Education, education, education.”

[Wes Streeting]

The hon. Gentleman is right to pay tribute to the last Labour Government’s academies plan for what it did for school improvement in the most disadvantaged areas. Surely he would agree with the former Education Secretary Lord Blunkett, who said that the current Government’s approach, which is not based on evidence, risks

“discrediting the entire academy programme”.

[Neil Carmichael]

Lord Blunkett was correct when he was expressing concern about schools in Yorkshire and wondering why there was not a commission on schools there to deal with the problems that he has identified—that came up in the all-party group on Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire—so I think the hon. Gentleman makes a good point well.

We need to think about the current position in our education system. The “long tail of underachievement” report published by Ofsted back in 2012-13 makes it clear what the problem is: there are too many failing schools or coasting schools, particularly in the primary sector. They are the ones letting down young people and causing a problem. When children leave primary school without the ability to read or write, as too many children did back in 2010, they struggle and they continue to struggle in secondary school. The evidence is frightening. Analysis of the data on children who had a bad start shows that they never recover.

We need to think of an alternative way, and the academies programme has delivered success. More than 80% of academies are good or outstanding. That is why it is important to have more academies. However, the framework for academies needs to be carefully explored. It is important for us to understand what a good multi-academy trust looks like, and the Education Committee will be looking into that. That does not mean that all academies should become members of MATs, but it does mean that a good MAT will attract a lot of good schools because of the range of opportunities it provides, the emphasis on partnership, the strength of leadership and so on.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) spoke about primary schools, and that is exactly the right subject for us to talk about. We must make sure that primary schools get together, work together and form partnerships. That is why I was pleased to be present when the Association of School and College Leaders and the National Governors Association launched their report entitled “Forming or Joining a Group of Schools: staying in control of your school’s destiny”. That is about bringing schools together, hopefully through a structure that will benefit their transition from maintained to academy status if that is a direction of travel that they need to take.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

I declare an interest as a councillor in the London borough of Redbridge, a borough that has a high level of retention of schools as part of the local authority family, and also an excellent and constructive relationship with the free schools, academies, grammar schools and independent schools that make up the rich diversity of education in our borough.

This Government have got their priorities on education very badly wrong. When they should be focusing on school standards, they are focusing on structures, without any focus whatsoever on evidence. It has been striking that so few Government Members have stood up in support of the Government’s proposals. We have heard many excellent speeches against those proposals and against the outrageous attack on parent choice and voice. I will not single them out, because being called a red Tory is a cross that no one should have to bear.

The Secretary of State should have been at the Dispatch Box today talking about the first real-terms cut in school budgets since the 1990s. She should have been talking about how she is going to deal with the crisis in teacher recruitment and retention that is seeing many excellent teachers leave the profession because of the stress of their workload and also because of the offence caused by people in this place and in Whitehall continuing to tell professionals how to do their job.

Our job is to make sure that every child gets the best start in life, and to ensure that the accountability mechanisms are in place to assure ourselves that that is the case, and, if it is not, to intervene. What justification can there be for the fact that the majority of schools that will be affected by the policy are primary schools, more than 80% of which are already good or outstanding? Why are we focusing on excellence when we should be focusing on underperformance?

Why is the Secretary of State not taking advice from her own chief inspector of schools who, after an inspection of seven multi-academy trusts, highlighted serious weaknesses, sometimes the same as in the worst performing local authorities and often accompanied by the same excuses? Conversion to academies and placing schools in the hands of multi-academy trusts is not a panacea or a magic wand. We should follow the evidence when setting education policy.

That is my fundamental problem with the White Paper—it does not follow the evidence. There is no evidence that making a school an academy will somehow make it better. Yes, we need more freedom for schools and more trust in professionals. We need to follow the example that we saw under the Labour Government. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Fareham (Suella Fernandes) said, I am proud of what the Labour Government delivered on education. I am a product of it. I went to school in London when London schools were left to sink. Instead, we had the London Challenge, Excellence in Cities and a raft of measures that came through funding and also through focus on outstanding teaching and outstanding leadership. That is what the Secretary of State should be talking about today. Instead, she has a dogmatic, ridiculous White Paper that will not deliver what she says it will.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Rachael Maskell to speak until 6.44.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wes Streeting Excerpts

Monday 7th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gyimah]

I am afraid I have to disagree with the right hon. Lady. In the previous Parliament, the childcare sector created 230,000 new places. I am confident that with record investment the sector will rise to the challenge of delivering the 30 hours. It is about time that we stopped talking down the childcare sector and recognise the continued growth of the industry.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

At recent constituency surgeries, I have had representations from both private providers and state maintained nurseries telling me that the funding simply will not be there. It is no good blaming the sector or blaming local authorities for the fact that the Government have a model that is half-baked, underfunded and running behind time. What is the Minister going to do to make sure that the pledge the Conservatives made to parents at the general election is made real through the availability of places and, crucially, the funding to go with it?

[Mr Gyimah]

Let me puncture the hon. Gentleman’s question with a dose of reality. The Government are investing more in childcare than any previous Government. At a time when other Departments are facing financial constraint, the Government have made childcare a strategic priority. That is why we undertook the first ever cost of childcare review to ensure that funding is fair to providers and sustainable for the taxpayer.

Student Maintenance Grants

Wes Streeting Excerpts

Tuesday 19th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

It says it all about the Government policy that we are debating that so few of their Back Benchers have turned up to read the poor script they have been given by the Whips, and it says everything about how they conduct themselves that instead of having a proper debate on the Floor of the House, with a full vote involving all Members, they sought to have a debate down the corridor and up the stairs, hoping that nobody would notice, in a Committee that nobody has ever heard of.

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

The hon. Gentleman made a similar point during his Adjournment debate a few weeks ago on student nurses and bursaries. Is he as concerned as me, first, that the Government are increasingly using this device to sneak through their most controversial legislative proposals without debate and, secondly, that it is contrary to the comments by the Leader of the House on 10 December 2015, on this very issue, when he indicated we would have a debate on the Floor of the House?

[Wes Streeting]

I agree wholeheartedly. In their cowardice the Government are treating with disdain the House and the students we are all sent here to represent. In spite of what the Minister says, there is absolutely no mention in the manifesto of cutting student grants. In fact, we would find Lord Lucan before we found any reference to cutting student grants, so they cannot hide behind a democratic mandate. As a student union president and president of the National Union of Students, I used to have arguments with previous Labour Governments—

[Mr Lammy]

Never.

[Wes Streeting]

That included arguments with my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). But even with landslide majorities there was always a full debate and a vote in the House, whether they were abolishing student grants or, more wisely, reintroducing grants following the introduction of top-up fees.

This afternoon, these proposals will impact on 500,000 students from the poorest backgrounds. In my local university, the University of East London, that equates to about £30 million of financial support for students—gone. At my alma mater, the University of Cambridge, the figure is more like £9 million. If there is one thing we know about the higher education sector, it is that not only opportunity but financial support is unevenly distributed. It is completely unfair that students from the poorest backgrounds will now face a postcode lottery when it comes to determining how much non-repayable support they receive.

The very existence of student grants was won as a result of hard-fought negotiations. Student leaders argued that, if we were going to ask people to make a greater contribution, it was only fair that the poorest students received a non-repayable contribution. How must Conservative Members and the few remaining Liberal Democrats feel about the fact that when, under the coalition Government, the then higher education Minister justified the trebling of fees, they were told, “Don’t worry. We’ve got the national scholarship programme, student grants and the £21,000 threshold going up by inflation.” What has happened since? The national scholarship programme has been abandoned; the threshold frozen at £21,000; and now we see the abolition of student grants. We cannot trust a word that these people say, particularly when it comes to fair access to higher education and support for the most disadvantaged. It is an absolute disgrace.

I am proud of what the last Labour Government did to widen access and opportunity to people from working-class backgrounds. I was one of the beneficiaries, from the excellence in cities work that was done in schools right through to the opportunities provided through expanded places.

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman is doubtless equally proud of the fact that the Labour Government said that they would not introduce tuition fees, and then did; and said that they would not introduce top-up fees, and then did. Does he accept that he and others who said five years ago that the introduction of increased fees would lead to a reduction in those from poorer backgrounds going to university were wrong? They were wrong then, and we believe that they are wrong today.

[Wes Streeting]

I remember the debate here in 2003, and I think it was to the credit of the Government of the day that the introduction of higher fees did not come in until after a general election, when at least the voters could make their judgment on whether they wanted to re-elect a Labour Government, which they duly did.

So much has been said about participation numbers this afternoon. I am certainly not going to make prophecies of doom about participation, but we should bear in mind a few facts. First, there is the issue of equity. How can it possibly be justified that students from the poorest backgrounds graduate with the largest amount of debt? How can it possibly be fair that under these repayment mechanisms, the wealthiest graduates who go on to the most successful jobs will end up paying less over the course of their working career than people from middle and lower incomes? That cannot possibly be justified as fair. We should take seriously the evidence from the Institute for Fiscal Studies published in 2014 showing that a £1,000 increase in the maintenance grant led to a 3.95% increase in participation. Removing the grant does not necessarily mean that participation will plummet, but I think there is a risk that it could suffer.

There is a huge amount of complacency from this Government about the impact of higher tuition fees on applications to part-time routes and for mature students. It does not have to be that way; other choices are possible. We should look at what the Labour Government in Wales have done. They have not chosen to abolish student grants; they have kept those grants in place.

If the Tories want to talk about hard choices, how are they going to look the poorest students from the poorest backgrounds in the eye and explain why this Government continue to alleviate the tax burden on the wealthiest, while making the poorest pay the cost of their higher education? A 75% contribution to the cost of higher education is, by anyone’s estimation, too much, and there is not a single item in the Conservative manifesto that Government Members can point to in order to justify this outrageous attack on the poorest students.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Feminism in the School Curriculum

Wes Streeting Excerpts

Monday 11th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Dr Huq]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. One out of 16 means 94% are men, which implies that women account for 6%, which is shameful and shocking given that we are 50% of the population. As I say, there is a strange sense of déjà vu, because the Government have also caved in over women composers on the music syllabus, so this has happened twice. On this particular feminist issue, another petition with close to 50,000 signatures has been organised by another constituent of mine. I am blessed to have such gender warrior constituents, both of whom are teenagers, but it should not be left to teenagers to write Government education policy. School kids should not be pointing out the error of the Government’s decisions again and again.

What are we talking about? Any good answer to an essay question should start with a definition of terms. The noble Lord Giddens from the other place calls feminism

“the struggle to defend and expand the rights of women”.

He traces its history back to the eighteenth century, citing the 1792 volume “A Vindication of the Rights of Women” by Mary Wollstonecraft. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) mentioned, she is the one female thinker who has survived on the key list in the draft syllabus.

Removing feminism from the curriculum is entirely incongruous with the claim the Prime Minister made across the Dispatch Box at Prime Minister’s questions to me only a few weeks ago that he is a feminist.

A-level politics covers other concepts that include sex and gender, gender equality and patriarchy. It covers a knowledge of the core ideas, doctrines and theories of feminist thought, traditions and distinctive features. When the Government announced plans to revise the politics A-level curriculum, that section had been completely removed, as had the ideologies of nationalism and multiculturalism. As the Minister is here, I would like to know the status of those concepts as well. The supposed compensation for the axing of feminism was the inclusion of a section on pressure groups. On a generous interpretation, feminism survives there in a reference to suffragists and suffragettes as examples of pressure groups—a lot of lateral thinking and mental gymnastics are needed there.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne mentioned the Fawcett Society. It has come out strongly against the proposals. It dates from Millicent Fawcett, whose work as a suffragist goes back to 1866. The Fawcett Society made a submission to the consultation to which the Government are yet to respond.

When this question arose in the other place, the Minister replied that those who want their feminism fix should do A-level sociology. It is unacceptable to think in that compartmentalised way. Feminism should be widened, not narrowed, within and between disciplines.

The mooted rewriting of history is nothing short of sinister. It is deleting women. The e-petition at Change.org, which has received close to 50,000 signatures, was started by my constituent June Eric-Udorie—another 17-year-old. It states:

“We must show women to be inspired by and be taught that the ideas of feminism and gender equality are important.”

It says that otherwise,

“we only get half the story.”

This is by no means the first time that the Conservative party has caved into sixth formers or the first time that Labour has held the Government to account on gender blindness and something has had to be cobbled together retrospectively.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

I am delighted to be in a minority as a man participating in this debate. Recently on the Treasury Committee, we doubled women’s representation from one to two. That tells us something about this problem. Does my hon. Friend agree that when school groups visit Parliament, one of the things that we all need to do—I certainly do this—is to encourage women, people from black and minority ethnic backgrounds, and people from other under-represented backgrounds to put themselves forward? Does she agree that the absence of feminism from A-level politics sends the worrying message that somehow politics is not for women?

Oral Answers to Questions

Wes Streeting Excerpts

Tuesday 15th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

My hon. Friend is right. That is true of England. We have seen a record increase to 382,000 people in the past year, and the number of students from disadvantaged backgrounds has gone up from 9.5% to 18.2% in the past five years. In Scotland we have seen a fall in the number of students because Scotland does not have a funding system that allows all who want to go to university to do so.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

Given the report in The Independent on Sunday that Ministers in the Cabinet Office are desperately trying to find ways to increase the cap on tuition fees without proper debate and a vote in this House, can the Secretary of State confirm that any attempt to increase the cap on tuition fees will come back to this House for a full debate and vote? Can he also confirm that Government proposals in the autumn statement to extend tuition fees to nurses, midwives and students of allied health subjects will be subject to a proper debate and a vote in this House?

[Sajid Javid]

If the Government do decide to change the caps on tuition fees, there will, of course, be a debate in this House.

Compulsory Emergency First Aid Education (State-funded Secondary Schools) Bill

Wes Streeting Excerpts

Friday 20th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

I quite agree. My hon. Friend makes another valuable point. Quality is at the heart of the argument, too. That is the final argument I want to come on to. In all walks of life, doing something voluntarily is usually better than being forced to do it. Quality and diversity are important in this argument. If we inspire and encourage our schools, any other group and workplace to take this forward themselves, hopefully, they will come up with all manner of interesting ways in which to do that. The light-touch approach may result in better outcomes than the compulsory approach.

[Wes Streeting]

If the voluntary model is so compelling and inspiring, why do so few people in the UK have the ability to deliver life-saving first aid skills? Will the hon. Gentleman be extending that logic to English, maths, science and every other core national curriculum subject, or is he just trying to take up time to talk out the Bill?

[Robert Jenrick]

As we have heard, if 84% of teachers believe such training is important, I am surprised that the statistics suggest that only a quarter of their schools take that up. In my experience, teachers are passionate about the matter and the majority of schools in my constituency are doing the training anyway, in their own way. None of the schools I spoke to—no one has answered this point—wanted that to be put in the national curriculum. We must understand that, if Members vote for the measure, they may be voting against the professional judgment of head teachers and many of the staff involved in providing the training.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point that merely passing a piece of legislation and enshrining something in law does nothing to guarantee the outcome at the end of the process, which is what I think we should concentrate on. Perhaps the Minister could address the issue of an overall strategy in his remarks. We as a nation should perhaps be looking more at what we can do for the whole of society by trying to educate not just pupils at school, but adults where they are able and willing to learn, to make it easier for all of us to learn the necessary skills for use in emergency situations.

Another school I contacted had over 800 pupils. It said:

“The school currently provides some emergency first aid training for students. We have also recently trained all teaching staff in…CPR. Our view is that emergency first aid education is a desirable aspect of a school curriculum but should not be compulsory because firstly, there are implications for the training of all staff which would need to be done to a ‘failsafe’ high standard; and, secondly, some knowledge and some manoeuvres could be dangerous. We do feel that all schools should be encouraged to develop and cover key aspects as a minimum, but determine what and how training should be delivered.”

That is a fundamentally important point. We should encourage life-saving skills and encourage interest in the issue, but not simply prescribe it as a minimum requirement.

All the schools I contacted in my constituency, then, are supportive of the concept of teaching first aid, but they have concerns about the cost implications and the timetabling. Crucially, as I know from speaking to them, they do not want it to be made compulsory.

I am sure I am not alone in this place in finding that whenever I talk to teachers, it is not long before the subject of workload comes up. The very first thing teachers often say to me is, “Look, we are absolutely over-burdened with red tape and bureaucracy.” In 2013, the Department for Education carried out a workload diary survey, which found that teachers spent on average 12 hours a week working outside normal hours. It found that on average, all teachers reported working over 50 hours a week, with headteachers working in excess of 60 hours a week.

On the basis of those figures, it is understandable why some teachers, while supporting the concept of first aid training and education—who would not, if asked in a survey?—have some reservations. I am a bit sceptical about this survey that we keep hearing about. I have not seen the details of it. We keep hearing that virtually all teachers are supportive of this training and education, but I think we need to look at how the question was asked. If the question had been linked with the notion that “by the way, we are going to increase your workload”, I think we might have found a different response.

[Wes Streeting]

The hon. Gentleman has raised a number of concerns about school funding and workload, but I feel he is in danger of deviating from the topic of the debate. He has raised some interesting challenges for the Minister, too, so I wonder when he is going to conclude his remarks so that we can hear from the Minister. I, for one, have a constituency surgery to get on to, and I would like to vote before I leave.

[Mr Nuttall]

I am not sure whether there was a question in that intervention, but if I am in order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall carry on. I shall try to ensure that there is time for us to hear from the Minister, but I have some concerns about the Bill, and I think it fair to point out that it would place an additional requirement on teachers. That, surely, must be a matter of fact.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I must say to the Minister that he cannot read out a telephone book of examples. He needs to try to get to the point we are dealing with.

[Wes Streeting]

Why is he talking out the Bill?

[Mr Gyimah]

I am not talking out the Bill, as the hon. Gentleman suggests from a sedentary position. I think it is insulting to this House, which is a bastion of free speech and the cradle of democracy, that people should not be able to develop their arguments fully.

Further Education

Wes Streeting Excerpts

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Nicky Morgan]

I am not going to take any interventions for a while. I am going to make some more arguments and then Labour Members can come back and try to justify their track record in government, which is woeful.

Our analysis, backed by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, shows that the boost in the number of pupils getting good GCSE grades in England since 2010 is estimated to add around £1.3 billion to the country’s economy. Pupils who achieve five or more good GCSEs including England and maths as their highest qualification will each add on average around £100,000 more to the economy over their lifetimes than someone with below level 2 or no qualifications.

Had the Opposition chosen this business for the week after next, we could have had an informed debate about the post-16 settlement for the next four years, but they did not choose that. They chose to have an opportunistic, scaremongering debate today.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

rose—

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Carol Monaghan]

First, education is devolved—[Interruption.] I think this House could possibly pay attention. Members from the Minister’s own party have come to ask me what Scotland is doing—they are looking for advice and a new way of doing things.

[Wes Streeting]

I certainly agree with the hon. Lady that the Minister is not in a position to dish out lectures, but surely she has to look with some humility at the SNP’s record, which is staff cuts of 10%, funding cuts of 12%, 100,000 fewer students and 10 million fewer hours of learning. That is a record she should be ashamed of.

[Carol Monaghan]

In Scotland a well-publicised restructuring of the college sector has taken place over the past few years. We hear about these supposed cuts to places and hours, but what has been cut is short leisure courses of under five hours that do not lead to progression. In fact, in one area, college numbers were being made up from pupils at a local primary school who were subscribing to do a first aid course. These are not real college numbers. Let us look at the numbers involved and the hours spent on these short courses: 142 hours of those short courses account for one full-time place. These students are not real students; they do not exist. Short courses that lead to progression have continued to be maintained and are still delivered in our colleges.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wes Streeting Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Nicky Morgan]

My hon. Friend, who chairs the Committee, is absolutely right that any solution must be for the long term. I can assure him that, were there to be any changes, there would be an extensive consultation, in which I hope members of the Committee as well as members of the public, including schools, teachers and parents across the country, would be involved.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

Redbridge, like many other parts of London, faces an acute shortage of places in primary and secondary provision over the course of this Parliament. Will the Secretary of State or a relevant Minister agree to meet me and representatives from the local authority to discuss this? Will she consider allowing local authorities such as Redbridge with a good track record of local authority maintained schools not only to expand existing local authority schools but to build new ones?

[Nicky Morgan]

I or one of the Ministers will be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman. I remind him that in the previous Parliament we put in an extra £5 billion into the system to build new places, and we have committed another £7 billion for new places across the system. Of course, his own party took out funding for 200,000 places at a time of growing pupil numbers.

Trade Union Bill

Wes Streeting Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. At the heart of this Bill is partnership—partnership between trade unions and employers and other stakeholders. A great example of that can be seen at Toyota in Britain. It has not had one day of industrial action in 20 years, and that is because of the partnership that it rightly has with its trade union.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State is giving the House the impression that London commuters would somehow be protected by his threshold. Is he aware that the recent industrial action on the tube would have passed those thresholds? He talks about partnership. Is it not the case that it is not the strikes and the ballots that are the problems, but the intransigent Mayor of London who is sitting behind him?

[Sajid Javid]

I am coming on to thresholds, but the hon. Gentleman’s point proves that this is not some kind of ban on industrial action. Strike action can rightly still take place where there is clear support from the membership of the union.

Let me move on to thresholds. The whole point of strikes is to cause disruption, but the impact of industrial action on ordinary people—often the very working people whom unions were created to support—is such that it should ever be used only as a last resort. It should be taken only after the explicit backing of a majority of members. That is why this Bill sets a minimum turnout of 50% for industrial action ballots. If 1,000 union members are being asked to participate in a strike, at least 500 of them must vote for the ballot to be valid.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

If I may continue, most working people in lower-skilled, lower-paid roles are not part of trade unions, and it is they who are most deeply impacted by the disruption of strikes, particularly in key public services, including education and transport. It is right that this House rebalances our trade union laws in favour of all working people. It seems entirely reasonable, therefore, that, among other sensible reforms and amendments, we introduce a 50% threshold for ballot turnout and a 40% support threshold for key public services.

[Wes Streeting]

The hon. Gentleman seems to be a reasonable man who has misunderstood the Bill. He says that he wants to help workers and defend their rights and that he supports the threshold, but what possible explanation could there be for Government Front Benchers to continue to tell us that they will not support electronic balloting? How can that possibly be reasonable in the 21st century?

[Robert Jenrick]

The hon. Gentleman will have heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State say that he is deeply concerned about fraud, which is in no way in the interests of fair strikes and the trade union movement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wes Streeting]

As someone who has campaigned with organisations such as HOPE not hate, is my hon. Friend as concerned as I am that the Bill will damage funding for those organisations and their vital anti-racist, anti-fascist activity?

[Ruth Smeeth]

I agree. There are few organisations that challenge the political fallout of those hates and fears, and I had the privilege of working for the best one—HOPE not hate. I am sure that both sides of the House would agree that the politics of hate and fear have no place in this House. But, if it were not for the work of my colleagues we may well have seen a neo-fascist British National party MP in 2010. We built broad community campaigns in areas as diverse as Barking and Dagenham, Burnley, Keighley and my city, Stoke-on-Trent, to oppose the politics of hate and celebrate the politics of hope—and we won. But the reality is that we would not have won without the financial and organisational support of the trade union movement.

Since long before the battle of Cable Street, trade unions in this country have played a part in supporting community cohesion alongside their traditional role as workplace advocates. In recent years, they have put their money, time and people on the front line to challenge extremists. It was the trade union movement that led the campaign to unseat Nick Griffin from the European Parliament. It was trade unionists who stood up to the English Defence League in Tower Hamlets and it was trade unionists who worked with faith leaders in Woolwich when Fusilier Lee Rigby was brutally murdered.

Under this legislation, all of that work is under threat. That is compounded by the horrendous gagging Act, and the resultant chill factor is unacceptable. Clause 10 would place severe restrictions on trade unions’ ability to raise and maintain their political funds, because every restriction placed on trade union support for the Labour party applies equally to the wider community campaigns that the movement undertakes.

As I have said, today is Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish new year, and while I wish the House “L’shana tova”, I hope that the Secretary of State will take the opportunity of a clean start at the beginning of the year to think again and stop this abhorrent and unnecessary attack on the trade union and labour movements.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

I draw Members’ attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. On behalf of working people across my constituency and across the country, I rise to oppose this sinister, shabby and shameful piece of legislation, which goes against the best of British traditions in terms of the role that the trade union movement has played, particularly in the past century, in our democracy and civic life. I also make an appeal to the decent Conservatives on the Government Benches—at least to the ones who have bothered to show up today. This Bill goes against the best traditions of the Conservative party. If its members believe in free markets, they must surely believe in free labour. Perhaps that is why, in 1948, Winston Churchill opposed attempts to politicise the attacks on party political funding and the funding of a Labour party. Perhaps that is also why, in 1984, Margaret Thatcher said that the Conservative party should tread with caution before behaving in such a partisan way.

In 1998, John Major’s Government said that they had no problem with the funding of political parties by trade unions. This Bill does two things: it attacks the freedoms and liberties of working people and it makes a partisan attack on the funding of Her Majesty’s Opposition. Any decent democrat in this Chamber should be ashamed of themselves if they vote it through.

Look at the difference between the rhetoric and the reality in the Bill. The Government say that they want to give trade unions more democratic legitimacy, but this is, in fact, about delegitimising trade unions, increasing the threshold they need in order to go on strike but resisting their modernising calls to introduce electronic ballots. There lies the hypocrisy. The Government pretend that commuters in Ilford North and across London will no longer be affected by tube strikes, but the transport unions do meet the threshold, so this is not an attack on tube drivers going on strike; it is an attack on midwives, dinnerladies and other low-paid public sector workers who have the temerity to take on this Government.

The Bill goes against the best traditions of the Conservative party, but it is just what we should expect from this Prime Minister, a Prime Minister who has sought to rig the Commons and pack the Lords with his special adviser Lobby fodder, who will vote but not speak in debates. This is the Prime Minister who gags civil society, presiding over a Government who would have police officers taking the names of people on the picket lines when they should be out arresting criminals. They are our bobbies on the beat, so maybe they should arrest the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills for wasting police time.

I want to congratulate the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State on uniting the Labour party after a summer of vigorous debate. They think that this is purely about the funding of our party, but it is not; it is about values and belief in democracy, equality, collectivism and social justice. Those are the values of the real party of the workers, and that is why I oppose this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)]

I, too, would like to declare that I am a proud trade unionist and a member of Unite.

To be perfectly honest, I am very disappointed that we have to have this debate. As others have noted, the ability to form a union and carry out industrial action are basic rights in a democratic society. I am very concerned that the Government have introduced a Bill that seeks to undermine such fundamental rights.

As a trade unionist, I know that, if passed, this Bill will make it much more difficult for workers to raise concerns over safety, working conditions and pay. I am particularly concerned about the impact it will have on women in the workplace. We already know that women are systematically discriminated against in the labour market. Women already comprise the majority of those on the minimum wage and are more likely to be in insecure and low-paid jobs such as catering, cleaning and clerical work. Women are, on average, paid less than men and are more likely to be in in-work poverty.

It is also important to remember that women have borne a higher share of the burden of this Government’s austerity policies than men. Women have already suffered more from welfare cuts and pay freezes, and I am concerned that this Bill will make those inequalities much worse. The Government seem to be in denial about that. The Bill’s impact assessment totally fails to account for the disproportionate effect the Bill will have on women workers. The reality is that trade unions are one of the best tools in the struggle for gender equality, and attacks on union rights will damage the struggle for equality in the workplace.

Indeed, Government statistics on trade union membership have found that women workers who are in a trade union have a pay premium of 30%. That is no surprise when one remembers that the very purpose of much industrial action is to achieve gender equality in the workplace. If the Government restrict the rights of workers to organise, that will clearly have a negative effect on the struggle for pay equality.

Unionised workplaces are also more likely to have good policies on flexible working and maternity pay, as well as better support for those returning to work after pregnancy. By making it harder for workers to organise at work, this Bill will have a negative impact on all those areas, leading to further discrimination against women in work.

The Bill’s new strike ballot threshold will also affect women more than men.

[Wes Streeting]

On the increased threshold, I am sure my hon. Friend is as concerned as I am that it is not being made easier for workers to cast their votes through electronic balloting. Why does she think the Government will not agree to it?

[Kate Osamor]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend.

The Bill’s higher ballot threshold for essential services will disproportionately affect women, as they are much more likely to be employed in those sectors. Research by the TUC suggests that nearly three quarters—73%—of the trade union members working in important public services are women. Do the Government not understand that reducing the rights of those women at work will only increase the gender pay gap and worsen discrimination in the workplace?

This is a regressive Bill that threatens to undermine basic civil rights and reverse progress in achieving workplace equality. I urge Members on both sides of the House who do not want to see that progress reversed to vote against the Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wes Streeting Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gibb]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. So far this year, for example, we have received 24,000 acceptances on to teaching training programmes at universities and schools. That is marginally ahead of where we were this time last year. We have exceeded targets for primary school trainees and for history and PE teachers, and we are ahead on acceptances for maths, physics, chemistry and design and technology compared with this time last year. We do not underestimate the challenges, but those are the challenges that come from a strong economy, and I would rather have that than a weak economy.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

I should declare that I am an unpaid member of the London borough of Redbridge and a member of the governing body of Grove primary school in Chadwell Heath. Just last week, both Labour and Conservative councillors expressed concern about the school places crisis in Redbridge. Given that we have one of the fastest growing populations in London, what assurance can the Minister give us that we will receive the funding necessary for additional schools and school places and that there will be the teachers there to staff them?