| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mrs. Shephard: I am glad that my hon. Friend welcomes the proposal that Ofsted should have the power to inspect LEAs. If parliamentary time permits, we hope to legislate for that in the new Session. I am glad that my hon. Friend recognises the flexibility that greater amounts of money delegated to schools gives them. With that extra
money comes additional responsibility, and we must make sure that governors and others are well prepared to cope with it.
Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax): The policies outlined by the Secretary of State this afternoon are totally irrelevant to the children of Halifax, which has two grammar schools, because extra funding is needed for the rest of the schools. I invite the Secretary of State to visit Sowerby Bridge comprehensive school--which has 13 mobile classrooms in a disgraceful state--or the Ridings, another secondary comprehensive in desperate need of investment. What have the children of Halifax done to the Secretary of State to deserve her dreadful policies?
Mrs. Shephard: I might ask the hon. Lady what on earth Halifax local education authority is doing to schools in her borough.
Mr. Barry Porter (Wirral, South): Many assertions have been made about divisiveness. I invite my right hon. Friend to visit the Wirral peninsula, which has had good grammar and high schools for the past 20 years, since I resisted attempts by Shirley Williams to enforce comprehensives on us. The evidence of the Wirral peninsula is that grammar and high schools work in terms of academic achievement, are perfectly sensible socially, and have a good discipline record. That is there for all to see--and can be provided even for the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon).
Mrs. Shephard: I know that the picture painted of the Wirral by my hon. Friend is the case. Choice and diversity are alive and flourishing there, as in other parts of the country. It might be helpful if Opposition Front Benchers took the opportunity to visit the Wirral. I am going there in November, so they might like to come, too.
Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West): Has not the Secretary of State today exhumed from its dishonoured grave that cruellest, most wretched and wasteful feature of British education this century--a selection system that brands 90 per cent. of children as failures at the age of 11?
Mrs. Shephard: Oh, dear: another Opposition Member does not seem to have been listening. I have made it clear several times that we do not intend to return to the two-tier system of grammar and secondary modern schools. We propose the sort of pattern described by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter), of comprehensives, perhaps a grammar school with a selective stream, a technology college and a language college. I ask the hon. Gentleman to be more open-minded, and to visit the Wirral or Kent.
Madam Speaker: Thank you. We will now move on.
Points of Order
4.18 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My point of order concerns the Defamation Bill, particularly clause 13, which was passed by the House yesterday. It was generally agreed that, when that clause is enacted after Royal Assent, it will raise important issues of procedure and privilege as well as legal matters and, particularly, constitutional change.
It was generally agreed in debate that our procedures yesterday did not allow a full opportunity to assess the possible implications of that change. Indeed, there is no existing Committee of either House or a Joint Committee which was in a position to deal with that, particularly with the constitution of the Union--the Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and no other--and the possible differences that the Act will bring about on the different parts of that Union. The other place and ourselves are jointly the constitutional court of our constitutional Union, so both Houses have a part to play.
I believe that, during yesterday's debate, suggestions were made about how the gap in our procedures might be filled. May I ask you, Madam Speaker, to undertake consultation with various parts of the House to see whether the concern I have expressed is a general one, and if whether some conversations can take place about how we should proceed? Otherwise, should we not be dealing with our own constitutional duties in the way that I have described?
Madam Speaker:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because he gave me some indication of his point of order. The House has taken a decision on the proposals to which he referred, and has given the Defamation Bill its Third Reading.
If the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue his concern about the outcome--from what he said, that seems to be the case--he will have to find another way of bringing it before the House. He can do that by pressing those on his Front Bench or the Leader of the House for a Joint or Select Committee to review the law on privilege. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is ingenious enough to be able to do that.
Mrs. Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It concerns your ruling on an early-day motion about child abuse which I attempted to table last night. You said that the decision of the House on 20 June to approve a motion to set up a tribunal of inquiry means that the House's sub judice rule now applies, and that you cannot allow the early-day motion to appear on the Order Paper, although it refers to 1971 and the terms of reference of the tribunal are from 1974 onwards.
I question whether the motion of 20 June setting up the tribunal panel of inquiry was properly passed by the House. I was not able to object to the motion, as it was not called in the usual way. Over the past few days, I have looked at all the procedures used when remaining orders of the day have been taken since the House returned from its Whitsun recess.
I have examined the video recordings and found that, in every instance when a motion has been put, the number of the motion is called. For instance, on 5 June, only one motion was put to the House, and was introduced with the
words, "Motion No. 4". On 7 June, only one motion was put to the House and was introduced with the words, "Motion 2--business." In every instance, except on Thursday 20 June, that has been the case.
On that occasion, the Deputy Speaker said, "Now for the motion. The Question is the motion on the Order Paper." Where is the precedent for calling the motion without calling its number at the same time? I have failed to find it, and I should be grateful if you would inquire further into the matter.
Madam Speaker:
I am sorry that the hon. Lady is continuing to pursue this point, notwithstanding the fact that I have written to her fully about it and explained things. I had hoped that my letter would clarify matters for her. I suggest that she looks again at what I have said in relation to her draft early-day motion and the motion agreed to by the House last Thursday. No timetable was mentioned in the motion, which was agreed by the House, on setting up a tribunal.
The hon. Lady's clear duty undoubtedly lies in providing the tribunal, when it is established, with all the very important evidence that she appears to have.
As regards what took place last Thursday, I am satisfied that the hon. Lady could not have been in any doubt about the motion under consideration. She was in her place, and she therefore had every opportunity to object to it--as she had done on previous days. I can help her no further now with this matter.
Mr. Piers Merchant (Beckenham):
I beg to move,
Essentially, my Bill is about transparency. It is based on the reasonable assumption that trade union members are entitled to know where their money goes, and that, in general, that money should be spent to their direct benefit.
I say at the outset that my Bill is not intended as an anti-trade union Bill. I am not against trade unions, and I have always believed that they have an important part to play in modern industrial society. As proof of that belief, I should say that I was an active trade unionist for many years. On two occasions, I was elected as a father of the chapel--shop steward, in other words--for the National Union of Journalists by one of the biggest NUJ chapels. I led several times in tough pay negotiations, and at one time I even found myself leading a strike--something that later resulted in an unfortunate experience for me at the hands of Baroness Thatcher.
Many people today, of course, have no time for trade unions. There is therefore an onus on unions to show that they have broken with the more questionable practices of the past. I believe that my Bill will thus help them in moving on to higher ground.
In essence, my Bill would tackle two areas of trade union spending. It seeks first to limit the extent to which unions can operate to the financial benefit of their leaders rather than of their members. The House will remember the extraordinary financial manoeuvrings of Arthur Scargill as he spirited his members' funds from one country to another in pursuit of his goals, which in the process cost ordinary miners a huge amount.
More recently--last month--The Independent reported that members of the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union executive had awarded themselves what was termed "golden goodbyes" amounting to up to half a million pounds each. Those would enable executive members to retire up to 10 years early, to be paid around £40,000 a year, to receive a cash payment of £50,000 each and to keep their BMW or Rover cars, which are worth about £20,000. Not surprisingly, the union's newly elected president was then banned by his executive from saying anything about it.
It is one thing to use negotiating skills for the benefit of members, but it is quite another to use those same skills to divert members' funds to benefit self-appointed union fat cats so that they can live in idle luxury for the rest of their days. My Bill would make such deals transparent and subject to the approval of those unions' membership--approval that I suspect would not be forthcoming.
Secondly, my Bill would bring complete transparency and limits to trade union funding of outside organisations, including the Labour party. All money going to such organisations would have to be separately accounted for in far more detail than at present, its ultimate destination and purpose would have to be fully described, and, in total, it could not amount to more than a fixed percentage--to be agreed after consultation--of total membership dues.
Of course, some would argue that such funding should be ended altogether, and that trade unions should look after only their members, and not political parties. There is a case for that, but I am not advocating it. I am not advocating it in order to do the Labour party a favour--to protect the Labour party--for it is obvious that, without such funding, it would collapse.
The Labour party depends for more than 50 per cent. of its funding on the trade unions. It cannot sustain itself naturally because of a lack of any fundamental popular support for its policies, which is not surprising, as most people have no idea what they are. Indeed, the 1994 national executive committee funding statement made it clear that the unions provided 57 per cent. of the party's income in return for more than half the say in the party's affairs and policies.
Even more vital for Labour are the contributions made by unions to sustain the election campaigns of Labour Members. They are listed, clearly and properly, in the Register of Members' Interests. Member after Member reveals that he or she was able to stand only because of generous union funding.
The Transport and General Workers Union, the Manufacturing, Science and Finance union, the GMB, Unison, the National Union of Mineworkers, the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union, the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, and the Communication Workers Union--to mention just some of them--are all at it, often with dozens of Labour Members in tow, their generosity no doubt closely coupled with reciprocal obligations.
In such circumstances, transparency is the key. If the Labour party would not be viable without the trade unions, and if it has to sell its soul, at least we should all know about it. That is particularly true as devices are uncovered which reveal hidden funding.
On 18 May, for example, The Independent exposed the Labour party's commercial unit, which receives an income by organising conferences and exhibitions for friendly unions. One union official was quoted as saying:
Then there are the rather mysterious funds, whose status I have previously questioned, which finance the offices and activities of key Labour Front Benchers. In the current register, there is the clandestine John Prescott Campaign/Research Trust which is, not surprisingly, described as giving support to the office of the deputy
Leader of the Opposition. Do some trade unions provide money to that trust? If so, their members are entitled to know, and would do under my Bill.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) receives support, according to the register, from the Industrial Research Trust/Fair Tax Campaign, but who funds that? My Bill would require that, if unions were involved, their membership should know all the details.
Of a similar but more mysterious nature are the exciting idea of the Mo Mowlam Research Fund, which fleetingly appeared in the Register, and reported financial support from Unison for the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), which did not appear in the register. Previously, the Labour leadership received funding from the Industrial Reform Trust, run by Lord Haskel, an associate of Lord Kagan, which sounded as if it might have union connections. It seems recently to have been superseded by the Labour Leader's office fund, a pedestrian name if ever there was one, but we do not learn much about its funding.
According to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), the Labour Front-Bench research fund has now been set up. The hon. Gentleman says that all will be revealed--but it has not been yet. Until it is, suspicion will continue, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear in the House on 21 May. He said:
4.24 pm
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to restrict the power of trade unions to dispose of their funds for certain purposes.
My Bill would regulate and limit the power of trade unions to dispose of their funds in ways other than for the direct benefit of their members. It builds on the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which requires union officers to keep proper accounting records of transactions and assets and liabilities and to establish and maintain a satisfactory system of control of its accounting records, its cash holdings and all its receipts and remittances.
"If it wasn't for us the fund-raising figures would not look half so good."
Unions also give covert help in other ways, such as the provision of free or cut-price facilities, buildings, printing, manpower, subventions to regional Labour party organisations, and constituency support. All that should be clearly and transparently declared, too.
"In the Labour party, the trade unions provide the funds in return for votes at Labour's party conference and the party's trade union paymasters still have a say in Labour's election manifesto. That is the real scandal in party funding and the Labour leader cannot duck it."--[Official Report, 21 May 1996; Vol. 278, c. 96.]
Fundamentally, I am trying to help the Labour party. My Bill would bring transparency not just to trade union finances, but to the relationship between the Labour party and the trade unions. Recently, the Labour leadership has been saying that it wants that too--that it wants to break the shackles of the past. For that reason, I look forward to Labour's support for my Bill.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |